The gun industry lost a major court battle on Tuesday that could have a lasting effect. Police officers Bryan Norberg and Graham Kunisch were gravely injured after being shot in 2009, so they filed a civil suit against the store that sold the gun. The jury ordered Badger Guns to pay $6 million and said the store was negligent in making the gun sale, as it was clear from video footage that the person who bought the gun intended it for the shooter.
Tuesday’s verdict may offer a tiny glimmer of hope for some who advocate gun control. A 2005 law backed by the National Rifle Association gave gun manufacturers and dealers broad immunity from being sued — a unique protection for the industry. That law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), has been long condemned by gun control advocates who say that it should be easier to hold manufacturers and stores liable for crimes that involve their weapons.
That’s one point for humankind, zero for the NRA.
Team Blackness also discussed developments in the Tamir Rice case, the repercussions of jogging while black, and ignorant comments by Quentin Tarantino.
Subscribe on iTunes | Subscribe On Stitcher | Direct Download | RSS
The Other Chuck
The evidence is right there in video, but I have zero doubt that the gun humpers are screaming their fool heads off about this. Putting the lie to the whole “law-abiding” thing for sure, and showing for all the world to see that they’re on the side of wrong. Anything that serves The Almighty Gun is good, The Almighty Gun is all that matters.
Rounding up all the guns sounds like a good idea now. They’ve cried wolf for so long, I’m ready and willing to go find a wolf to sic on them.
dedc79
No, sadly that’s one point for humankind and a gazillion points for the NRA. I’m glad to get the point, but we’ve got a lot of catching up to do.
SiubhanDuinne
In the meantime, here are two adjacent headlines on the website of the Houston Chronicle:
NonyNony
I don’t see this as a clear win for gun control advocates. In this case the law worked as it was supposed to – the law isn’t supposed to protect dealers who knowingly sell guns to people who are going to turn around and sell them to someone else.
The problem with that is that it is usually really hard to prove that the dealer knew that the person he was selling the gun to was going to pass it on to someone else. In this particular case, the dealer and the guys purchasing the gun were morons. But this store has a long history of providing guns that go on to being used in illegal activities and this is the first time they’ve ever been called on it. (My cynicism says that it’s because it was the first time one of the guns they sold was used to shoot a cop in the face, but it’s just as likely that this is the first time they’ve ever had purchasers so stupid as to leave such obvious signs that they were going to be doing something illegal with it).
If the NRA were smart, this would be the case that they don’t defend but rather shut up about and let this guy go out of business.
The Other Chuck
@NonyNony:
Ted Nugent is on the board of directors of the NRA. This tells you all you need to know about their intelligence.
gene108
@The Other Chuck:
They’ve long since accepted the “slippery slope” hypothesis as gospel infallible truth.
The Slippery Slope hypothesis is if gun humpers give an inch on any gun laws, the “ball” will start rolling down the “slippery slope” towards outright gun confiscation.
Therefore the gun humpers have to work extra hard to make sure the “ball” stays in place and never starts rolling.
I’ve tried arguing with gun humpers about gun laws and it always goes back to the “slippery slope” hypothesis.
I do not see how you can effect changes to gun laws, when one side’s arguments come from imaginary ideas that are not grounded in reality.
Geeno
@gene108: Welcome to American politics – it’s not just guns that applies to.
father pussbucket (fka gnomedad)
@The Other Chuck:
Don’t they know #bluelivesmatter ?
Roger Moore
@gene108:
Those aren’t the arguments that matter. The argument that really matters is when the NRA tells Congresscritters that they’ll lose their seats to an NRA-backed candidate if they ever vote against the gun humpers’ extremist positions. If you can make that argument go away, we’ll get sensible gun laws.
Punchy
Looks like all of them will be involuntarily taking a course in CPR, GSW First Aid, Anger Management 102, and likely, Hostage (read: ex-girlfriends) Taking Negotiations.
Watch how fast the entire dorm floor clears of whites the first time 2 black kids room together and decide to have some Glocks on the ready.
Amir Khalid
@SiubhanDuinne:
An effective way to reduce the student headcount and cut costs.
trollhattan
In other sometimes-the-bad-guys-lose news:
Like the gun ruling, every chink in their armor is meaningful because if they accumulate enough, their house of lies collapses.
Face
OT, but more Christian persecution.
Seriously, this is such a bastardization of the whole concept that I’m stunned they’d have the balls to assert this.
Face
OT, but more Male Persecution
Seriously, the headline alone is so unseemly and damming that I’m stunned he’d have the balls to attempt this.
Hildebrand
@SiubhanDuinne:
And yet, Nerf guns are not allowed in the dorms. So, there ya go.
Roger Moore
@Face:
At this point, nothing is so unseemly and damning that I’m surprised when the Republicans try it.
gene108
@Roger Moore:
The reason the NRA argument carries so much weight is the gun humpers are convinced anyone, who does not adopt their extremist gun positions is either openly or secretly planning for an outright confiscation of all their guns.
President Obama, while campaigning said he’d not do a damn thing about existing gun laws circa 2008, but the gun humpers decided he secretly was planning to take all their guns, so they ran to the gun stores and bought up all the guns and ammo available.
The NRA does not have to do much to unleash the gun humpers to vote against their elected representatives. They are primed to believe the elected representative, who takes a non-extremist position is part of the vast liberal gun grabbers conspiracy and will vote accordingly.
Paul in KY
@Face: This sounds like Cleek’s Law or an Onion story! Shouldn’t these committed ‘Christians’ be thinking about doing Jesusey things?!
That would make a good joke in a Simpsons episode.
Another Holocene Human
@Punchy: There are grifters who sell computer based “Active Shooting Training”.
The training basically consists of “Run Away!!!!!”
Nice living.
gene108
@Face:
“Interesting” the sororities do not seem to be supporting this lobbying effort. Seems to be mostly frats.
Another Holocene Human
@Hildebrand: Nerf might leading to rough-housing, which is suspiciously, sinfully similar to dancing.
Paul in KY
@Face: Notice the frats funding this are the most rapey ones (IMO).
Also, check out the sub-heading: ‘Proposed legislation would require campus rape is report first to police before colleges investigate’, I guess unfrozen caveman editor approved this (ungowa).
Another Holocene Human
@gene108: Sororities do not seem to be in the habit of holding night-time festivals (planned and orchestrated by a secretive all-female crew) in which curious substances are imbibed and, and the height of the baccanale, untoward liberties are taken with men’s bodies.
No respect for tradition.
bluehill
Jeb! wants to colonize the moon, but doesn’t believe we can do anything to reduce gun violence.
peach flavored shampoo
@Hildebrand: I imagine it will be much harder for universities to match up freshman roomates if guns are in the equation. I’d have no prob rooming with any ethnicity, gay or straight, jock or nerd, but there’s not a chance in hell I’m sharing my dorm room with a (sometimes loaded) stranger and his loaded TEK9. NFW.
I wonder if that will need to be disclosed on the application form (“Question 17: Do you plan to bring a weapon upon which you may or may not accidently or purposefully kill your roomate and others into your domicile?”) in order to get the gunners matched up with each other at the start.
Iowa Old Lady
@peach flavored shampoo: Last time I looked, dorm walls, floors, and ceilings were unlikely to stop a bullet either. So your roommate isn’t the only problem.
Hildebrand
@Another Holocene Human: My son, a student at UChicago, had to add to his nerf gun supply, as they play a week-long, campus wide Humans v. Zombies game that is a wonder to behold. (They even have a website dedicated to tracking the ‘infection’.) He was thrilled this year, remained human until the last waning minutes of the game. Not sure if it led to dancing, but certainly a fair bit of sweaty running about.
Roger Moore
@peach flavored shampoo:
Of course not. What part of “concealed” don’t you get? Forcing people to reveal that they have guns is like painting targets on their backs. [ETA: /wingnut, in case it wasn’t obvious]
peach flavored shampoo
@Iowa Old Lady: Can the universities in TX designate “gun-free” dorms? Or is that loophole too liberal for the state? I see that private schools are exempt from this; why I understand the truth to why this is, what is the “official” stated reason that the TX Legislature gave for this exemption?
Amir Khalid
@peach flavored shampoo:
I wonder if students will even be allowed to ask if prospective roommates are packing. If too many students refuse to share a room with a stranger’s gun, the university will face a problem.
Paul in KY
@Iowa Old Lady: Isn’t that fucking crazy!!! I can think (right now) of at least 15 people who roomed on my floor in college that would have caused me to sleep outside under a bush, if I’d known they had a loaded gun on their possession.
Your RA’s would have been eligible for combat pay.
FlyingToaster
@SiubhanDuinne:
This is so bizarre.
Back in the 70s-80s, when I was at uni, I knew two competitive target shooters. Our dorm had an honest-to-goodness gun locker in the Residence office; the owners removed the firing pins, locked the guns and ammo in cases, and stored the cases in the locker. You weren’t allowed to keep weapons in rooms, and it was an absolute requirement that you kept your weapons in the locker. They’d have to make arrangements for the RA on duty to check them out if they had to leave before 6:00am to travel to a competition.
Why on earth would anyone think it’s a good idea for college kids to keep weapons in their dorm rooms?
@Hildebrand:
Oh for crying out loud. Who the fuck is going to enforce that?
Gimlet
NASHUA, N.H. (AP) — Republican presidential candidate John Kasich would dramatically scale back the federal government’s role in administering education and transportation funding.
Kasich called for broad tax cuts that would grow the budget deficit in the first few years, according to projections his campaign shared with The Associated Press. His advisers predict that economic growth sparked by the tax cuts, backed by cuts to Medicare and Medicaid and an eight-year freeze on all non-defense discretionary spending, would eventually offset lost tax revenue to balance the federal budget for the first time since Bill Clinton was president.
Kasich’s tax plan would lower the top individual tax rate from 39.6 percent to 28 percent, reduce long-term capital gains tax rates to 15 percent and eliminate the estate tax, lower the top business tax rates from 35 percent to 25 percent and double the research and development tax credit for small businesses.
While most of the cuts benefit the wealthy, Kasich would increases by 10 percent the earned income tax credit, a measure designed to help lower-income taxpayers.
“If you are a person that thinks you ought to pound the rich into submission, I guess you won’t like the plan,” Kasich said in an AP interview before the speech.
Punchy
@Roger Moore: It’s concealed until Day 1 of school, when said roomate takes it out of his desk and shows it off to everyone else. Then used Day 2 to kill a cockroach in a drunken stupor, initiating a campus-wide lockdown and 4 sets of SWAT teams.
Repeat on Day 4, Day 7, Day 11, ad infinitum.
I guess if they can’t learn physics in class, they’ll learn momentum and projecticle motion in their dorms.
Roger Moore
@FlyingToaster:
Because they’ve spent way too much time listening to the gun lobby tell them that more guns are always the solution. Petty crime? Give everyone guns and the criminals will be too afraid. Violent crime? Give potential victims guns and criminals will be too afraid to attack them. Mass shooting sprees? The only solution to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
peach flavored shampoo
Stupid alcoholic cockroaches, always on the sauce when not scurrying around. ;)
Amir Khalid
@Gimlet:
Remind me: is John Kasich currently polling above 1%?
Gimlet
@Amir Khalid:
That’s 1% with a bullet!
Mike J
@Hildebrand:
It’s interesting the see the cross over between those who believe the cops were right to murder a 12 year old for playing in public and those who think schools prohibiting toy guns are being stupid.
Gin & Tonic
@Gimlet: Is it too much to ask that you post a URL?
Calouste
@Amir Khalid: He is between 2 and 3% in the averages.
Paul in KY
@Gimlet: Ten whole percent on the Earned Income Credit!!! What a man of the people is this Kasich fellow!
gene108
@peach flavored shampoo:
Private universities are on private property not run by the state.
Private property owners still have some rights.
NonyNony
@FlyingToaster:
Haven’t you heard? An armed society is a polite society!
gene108
@Gimlet:
I like Krugman’s take on Republicans here.
Too bad the MSM hasn’t figured this out yet.
Gimlet
@Gin & Tonic:
I was afraid someone would remember Glenn Greenwald saying something similar and immediately dismiss it.
It’s an AP article should be easy to find.
Gin & Tonic
@Gimlet: Look at gene108’s comment immediately above yours. A Krugman article is also easy to find, yet he provides a link. That’s why the comment box has a “link” button.
Mike J
@NonyNony: An armed society is a politically correct society. Everybody will be too worried about offending people to say what they really think.
I think I’m going to start spreading this one in places it will cause the most confusion.
Amir Khalid
Two items from TPM:
1. Trump and Carson are threatening to sit out the third candidates’ debate if it runs over two hours.
2. A non-editorial employee at The New York Times directed a rude tweet at Jeb. Nothing he tweeted was untrue, but NYT is still mad at him.
geg6
@Gimlet:
Greenwald deserves to be dismissed out of hand. He is completely unreliable in a similar, if not as prolific, manner as FOX News is. I don’t click on unreliable journalism, let alone waste a minute of time reading it.
Bill
@FlyingToaster:
Underdeveloped adolescent brains away from home for the first time, plus copious amounts of alcohol, is just a natural fit for firearms.
What could go wrong?
Roger Moore
@Mike J:
I like it, even if it isn’t true. “Political Correctness” is about people in positions of authority imposing new language on a resisting populace in order to encourage habits of thought the authority figures prefer.
Mike J
@Roger Moore: I’ve never heard anybody use the term political correctness when it wasn’t a synonym for “politeness”.
neonnautilus
First question in my mind? Would the verdict have been the same if the victims had not been policemen?
Roger Moore
@Mike J:
It isn’t just a synonym for politeness. It’s about substituting new, hopefully non-offensive terms for older terms that the PC enforcers have decided are now offensive. Many, but not all, of the terms we’re being asked to change really are offensive, and using the PC term is about politeness. But there are other cases where there seems to be a deliberate attempt to get people to change for change’s sake, or a mistaken attempt to make some kind of subtle political point in the name of a thing. For example, most Native Americans don’t find the term Indian to be particularly offensive and use it about themselves.
TS
@neonnautilus:
First thought in my mind as well.
LAC
@Roger Moore: I thought political correctness was a term used by pouty white guys who think that they are the arbiters of how to speak to people and what to call them.
TS, me three…