We'll be breaking down last night's debate and much more today with: Mike Barnicle, Richard Haass, Mark Halperin, Marty Baron, Douglas Jehl, David Ignatius, Dan Senor, Rev. Al Sharpton, Walter Isaacson, Robert Costa, Andrea Mitchell, Amb. Wendy Sherman, Mary Kissel, Secy. John Kerry, Sen. Rand Paul, Ayman Mohyeldin, Fmr. Amb. Nick Burns, Fmr. Amb. Chris Hill, Ari Melber and in Taiji, Japan today, the rain and wind has kept the banger boats docked! It's a BLUE COVE DAY! 2016-18-01 The team on the ground does some checking on the captives at Dolphin Base during the bad weather and rough seas. 2016-18-01 07:25am #dolphinproject #tweet4dolphins.
6 takeaways from the Democratic debate. Bernie Sanders is mad as hell -- and he's hoping Democratic voters are, too.
The Vermont senator denounced a "corrupt" political system and cast himself as a break from it, while Hillary Clinton tied herself tightly with President Barack Obama and argued she'd build on his legacy, as the Democratic presidential contenders clashed Sunday night in Charleston.
Here are six takeaways from the final Democratic debate before the first votes are cast in Iowa and New Hampshire:
Sanders = Trump
It's not often you hear Sanders say the words "my good friend Donald Trump" -- but the two have something in common: Their tones match a moment of anger within the electorate.
Clinton promised continuity. She highlighted her record. She touted her ability to get results within the limitations of the modern political climate.
Sanders offered none of that. Like Trump, his cause is change, not compromise.
His take on why his Medicare-for-all proposal can't pass in Congress could have been applied to just about any of his arguments: "It's because we have a campaign finance system that is corrupt. We have super PACs. We have the pharmaceutical industry pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into campaign contributions and lobbying and the private insurance companies as well."
Sanders' fire-and-brimstone touches on some of the same topics as the Republican front-runner -- particularly super PACs and the influence of money.
Just like Trump, Sanders even riffed on polling when asked about his strategy to win over African-American voters, arguing that they'll like him more once he wins in Iowa and New Hampshire.
"Let me talk about polling. ... In terms of polling, guess what, we are running ahead of Secretary Clinton in terms of taking on my good friend Donald Trump," Sanders said. "We have the momentum. We're on a path to a victory."
Clinton = Obama
It was her go-to move, and she went to it a lot: On gun control, health care, financial regulation, her "many hours in the Situation Room advising President Obama" and more, Clinton cast herself as the defender of Obama's legacy and Sanders as someone who'd toss out his accomplishments.
There are three reasons for the strategy: Obama remains popular with Democrats. She has a strong claim to the President's legacy having served in his Cabinet as his top foreign policy officer. And minority voters favor Obama and Clinton over Sanders.
Clinton is eyeing South Carolina as a firewall -- a place she can regain her footing even if Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire, two states that are whiter and more liberal than the Democratic electorate overall.
Her attacks on Sanders were all designed to drive a wedge between him and Obama.
She accused Sanders of calling Obama "weak" and "ineffective" when it came to perhaps Clinton's most vulnerable subject, Wall Street reform, and said he'd tried to recruit a primary challenger against Obama in 2011. That year, Sanders had said many Democrats are "deeply disappointed" in Obama's shifts rightward, and a primary opponent could "begin contrasting what is a progressive agenda as opposed to what Obama is doing."
"I am going to defend President Obama for taking on Wall Street, taking on the finance industry and getting results," Clinton said.
Purity vs. pragmatism on health care
Sanders' shoot-for-the-moon liberalism and Clinton's embrace of Obama were clearest in their biggest fight of the evening: health care.
Just two hours before the debate, Sanders had rolled out a tax plan that would fund his Medicare-for-all proposal to scrap private health insurance entirely and replace it with a government-run program.
Sanders offered himself as the true champion of the left's biggest policy dreams.
"What a Medicare-for-all program does is finally provide in this country health care for every man, woman and child as a right," he said. "The truth is that Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman ... they believed that health care should be available to all of our people."
Clinton, meanwhile, noted that Democrats had fought for a "public option" in Congress before Obamacare was passed -- but, to liberals' disappointment, hadn't succeeded.
And then she turned to Obama's legacy.
"We have the Affordable Care Act. That is one of the greatest accomplishments of President Obama, the Democratic Party and our country," Clinton said. "To tear it up and start over again, pushing our country back into that kind of a contentious debate, I think is the wrong direction."
Clinton's foreign policy advantage
When the debate shifted to foreign policy in its second hour, Clinton displayed a command that was in sharp contrast to Sanders' quiet.
She gamely handled a question about the moment she handed Russian officials a "reset" button as secretary of state and defended what she got for that symbolic button: a new START Treaty, as well as cooperation on sanctions for Iran.
Sanders, on the other hand, has tried to turn back questions about his foreign policy knowledge by pivoting to judgment. But as the primaries draw near, voters often spend time thinking about the commander-in-chief test -- and Sanders has a long way to go in convincing voters of his readiness to handle foreign affairs.
Nobody's hitting the Republicans
In every Republican debate, all the GOP candidates join together to bash Obama, Clinton and "Obama-Clinton" every chance they can get. And in the earlier Democratic debates, all Clinton and Sanders could talk about was how awful the Republican presidential field -- particularly Trump -- is.
Sunday night, there were very few cross-party attacks.
It's a reflection of a tightening race: Clinton spent her first months of the 2016 campaign refusing to even utter Sanders' name. Now, he's a real threat and her strategy was aimed at him, not the GOP.
Health care and gun control, in particular, have emerged as key splits in the Democratic race where Clinton believes she can win liberal voters from Sanders.
The debate was just a block away from the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, the site of last year's racially-motivated shooting of nine churchgoers. Clinton used that proximity to criticize Sanders, painting him as cozy with the National Rifle Association.
"He has voted with the NRA, with the gun lobby, numerous times. He voted against the Brady Bill five times. He voted for what we call the Charleston loophole. He voted for immunity for gun makers and sellers," she said.
"He voted to let guns go onto Amtrak, guns go onto national parks. He voted against doing research to figure out how we can save lives."
Sanders didn't interject as the debate shifted topics -- a signal he was ready to move on.
Sanders willing to throw punches
No, he wouldn't swipe at Clinton's husband, saying he wants to focus "on the issues, not Bill Clinton's personal behavior."
But Sanders did show a new willingness to attack Clinton on personal matters. Twice, he hit her for delivering paid speeches to Goldman Sachs -- a move intended to undermine Clinton's credibility on Wall Street reform and call into question her commitment to reforming the political system more broadly.
"I don't get personal speaking fees from Goldman Sachs," he said.
Minutes later, he swung again. "You've received over $600,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs in one year," he said, later turning his focus to criminal justice and noting that "not one of their executives is prosecuted" for actions during the 2008 economic crisis.
The man who often crowed that he'd never run a negative attack ad in his life appears to sense that, with a lead in his sights in Iowa and New Hampshire, it's time to strike. Bernie Sanders referenced during a defense of his health care plan. It was Harry Truman. CNN's Maeve Reston contributed to this report.
Bernie was on fire! He nailed it over and over again. On health care. On Black Lives Matter. On Wall Street. On gun safety.
Did I mention health care??!!! He nailed it with answer after answer.
Listen, the establishment is going to try and say this debate wasn't a huge win for Bernie. They always do. But the campaign can prove them wrong if we voice our support in the only language the media understands.
The first question in the debate got to the heart of our campaign. Lester Holt
asked us, "How would you think big?"
This country
faces more serious problems today than at any time since the Great Depression.
Now is NOT the time for thinking small. Now is NOT the time for the same-old,
same-old establishment politics and stale inside-the-beltway ideas.
If we continue
to stand together, we have the opportunity for our political revolution to
achieve the goal of universal health care as a right for every man, woman, and
child. When you’re sick and go to a doctor, you should not come out in
bankruptcy.
We will break
up the big banks, take on Wall Street, and make the economy work for everybody,
not just a handful of millionaires and billionaires.
We will fight
to reverse climate change. We will protect a woman's right to choose. We will
make the minimum wage a living wage. We will make our communities safer from gun
violence.
We will do all
of this and more. But I can't take on the billionaire class alone. I need you to
stand with me tonight. So I am asking you directly:
Now is the
time for millions of working families to come together, to revitalize American
democracy, to end the collapse of the American middle class. We must make
certain that our children and grandchildren are able to enjoy a quality of life
that brings them health, prosperity, security and joy — and that once again
makes the United States the leader in the world in the fight for economic and
social justice, for environmental sanity and for a world of peace.
Poll: Clinton Holds 25-Point National Lead Over Sanders. Hillary Clinton leads rival Bernie Sanders by 25 points nationally ahead of Sunday's final Democratic debate and the all-important Iowa caucuses, according to the latest results from the new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
Clinton is the first choice of 59 percent of Democratic primary voters, while Sanders gets the support of 34 percent. Martin O'Malley gets 2 percent.
Those numbers don't differ greatly from December, when the poll showed Clinton with a 19-point national advantage over Sanders, 56 percent to 37 percent.
But Clinton's current 25-point lead contrasts with other recent national polling, including a New York Times/CBS survey, which found Clinton with just a seven-point advantage.
The NBC/WSJ poll screens out Democratic and Republican voters who aren't expected to participate in the presidential primaries and caucuses.
The new poll also finds 79 percent of Democratic primary voters saying that they could see themselves supporting Clinton, versus 18 percent who couldn't (+61) — essentially unchanged from December's 82 percent-to-17 percent score (+65).
By comparison, 66 percent of Democratic primary voters say they could see themselves supporting Sanders, versus 25 percent who couldn't (+41), and O'Malley has a 22 percent-to-51 percent score (-29).
Despite Clinton's lead over Sanders, the Vermont senator bests Clinton among the four-in-10 Democratic voters who prefer a presidential candidate who brings change to current policies,63 percent to 26 percent.
Yet among the more than half of Democrats who instead want experience and a tested candidate, Clinton beats Sanders, 71 percent to 30 percent.
Overall, 61 percent of all voters want change, while 36 percent prefer experience.
The NBC/WSJ poll was conducted Jan. 9-13, and the margin of error of the 400 Democratic primary voters surveyed is plus-minus 4.9 percentage points.
And, one of the key issues is something I personally resurrect last year. Three days before Hillary made it part of her campaign and a few more days before they mentioned it in that last debate, I wrote the following article about the fact that manufacturers and sellers are immune to law suits no matter what happens in America (http://donlichterman.blogspot.com/2015/10/another-day-another-mass-shooting-in.html):
I recently saw an expose' on television that had a 15 year old kid attempt to buy a lottery ticket which he was denied to do at that market. I then watched that same kid try to buy liquor which again, he was denied by that liquor store clerk. He then tried to buy a pack of cigarettes which he was denied by that attendant at that market.
He then went to a gun show in Pennsylvania, I believe where he was able to buy 5 guns within an hour span of time.
There is something wrong with that scenario.
Besides, they are mere symptoms to the major problem we face with gun violence today
However, there is nothing worse than anything set forth by law, than gun makers being immune to civil liability laws against them. The following is a brief summary of the Equal access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act, written by The Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan division of the Library of Congress. They are a nonpartisan division of the Library of Congress and this bill I speak about was introduced to the House on 1/22/2013.
"The 'Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act' prohibits a court from dismissing an action against a manufacturer, seller, or trade association for damages or relief resulting from an alleged defect or negligence with respect to a product, or conduct that would be actionable under state common or statutory law in the absence of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, on the basis that the action is for damages or relief from the criminal, unlawful, or volitional use of a qualified product."
Congress initially passed the law with support from Republicans as well as Democrats in pro-gun states, and Schiff’s proposed legislation failed.
What it does is make the contents of the Firearms Trace System database that is maintained by the National Trace Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) subject to subpoena or other discovery and admissible as evidence in law suits. It permits such contents to be used, relied on, or disclosed, and permits testimony or other evidence to be based on the data, on the same basis as other information in a civil action in any state or federal court or in an administrative proceeding.
That is not allowed by law, today.
It should be proposed as legislation that would ease current law to allow people to file civil law suits against gun manufacturers and others in the industry when they act irresponsibly. The The Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act, from Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), would amend the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). According to Rep. Schiff, that 2005 law enacted by George Bush Jr. and by Dick Cheney gives gun manufacturers, distributors and gun dealers immunity from most civil negligence and product liability actions. That was described that year as the 'mother of all laws' because what it does is to make an entire industry immune to law suits.
I therefore ask every reader the following question which is what industry on this planet is immune to law suits as a whole? I ask any reader to name one. I then ask major media outlets to take hold of this article, and to run with it. I then ask the POTUS to do the same thing. I especially ask the people in Congress to do the same thing.
Because by mentioning talking points such as they do today, that is just a product of the problem. It is NOT the root of it. In reality, there are only two scientific constants to every killing with a gun and that is the gun itself and the bullet used to do it. Everything else is a part of the problem and again, there is no real science behind it. Plus, every other issue behind every gun death, varies (i.e.: racism, general mental behavior issues, the magazine a gun holds, the type of a gun, people in general etc. are the reason given as talking points about why whomever kills anything). I will say it one more time. The ONLY scientific thing regarding every killing, murder, injury are the gun and the bullet itself.
Let me assume that no one is going to believe that we Americans are going to get rid of every gun and / or every bullet.
However, I myself say and the Representative Adam Schiff believe that his bill is needed to be passed as a way to allow suits to go forward when these entities are found to be negligent, or for product liability issues, let alone for selling a gun or any weaponry in a corrupt way (i.e.: knowingly selling guns and bullets to someone that you know will use it for a crime).
Since 2005, "numerous cases around the nation have been dismissed on the basis of PLCAA even when the gun dealers acted in a fashion that would qualify as negligent if it involved any other product," Schiff said in a letter to House colleagues seeking support for his bill. "The victims in these cases are denied the right to even discover and introduce evidence of negligence.
(Adam) Schiff goes on to say that his "bill will reinstate the intent of PLCAA, allowing civil cases to go forward against irresponsible actors" "Letting courts hear these cases would provide justice to victims while creating incentives for responsible business practices that would reduce injuries and deaths. At the same time, my bill will provide protection for gun companies who are sued when they do not act negligently, which was the purpose of PLCAA."
And, I agree with that 100%. With such a law in place, the incentive to not sell any old product to anyone would help root out a lot of these issues we face today. Certain people would not have a 13 gun arsenal in its hands (Authorities say dead suspect had more than a dozen firearms, including six recovered from the crime scene.). Schiff added that current law only protects the "worst actors in the industry," and said that "good gun companies" and I say gun sellers "don't need special protection from the law; bad companies don't deserve it."
Schiff's bill is co-sponsored by 11 other house Democrats, including Budget Committee ranking member Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). It has been dead since it was placed into action in January 2013. There have been thousands of people killed with guns and bullets since that day.
Schiff also introduced another bill that would create a new, two-year sentence for "straw purchasers" of firearms, or people who are buying weapons for people who cannot pass a background check. He states that "the laws currently on the books targeting straw purchasers of firearms don't treat it as anything other than a paperwork violation." He also states that "we need to crack down on those who are buying weapons with the express purpose of providing them to those who can't pass a background check" and that "straw purchasing is not a 'paperwork' violation — it's a serious crime that has led to a horrendous increase in criminal access to firearms."
Our culture that is geared towards guns is fine to have in America. However, we Americans have lost our responsibility to do it.
CNN reported the other day about American deaths in terrorism vs. gun violence which they spelled out to everyone in one graph:
*Includes the following domestic terrorism incidents:
September 11 attacks (NY, DC, PA) 9/11/01
2001 Anthrax attacks (DC, NY, CT, FL) Oct., Nov. 2001
El Al counter shooting (California) 7/4/02
Beltway sniper attacks (DC, Mid-Atlantic) Oct. 2002
Knoxville church shooting (Tennessee) 7/27/08
Pittsburgh police officers killed (Pennsylvania) 4/4/09
Tiller abortion clinic (Kansas) 5/31/09
Holocaust Museum shooting (DC) 6/10/09
Fort Hood shooting (Texas) 11/5/09
Plane crash into Austin IRS building (Texas) 2/18/10
Fort Stewart Army base killing (Georgia) 12/10/11
Sikh Temple Shooting (Wisconsin) 8/7/12
St. John's Parish police ambush (Louisiana) 8/16/12
Boston Marathon Bombing (Massachusetts) 4/15/13
LAX Shooting (California) 11/05/13
Think about the money we spend on every year to combat terrorism compared to what we spend every year to combat Gun violence in America.
I ask every reader to understand that simple fact. I ask every reader to think about it that way. Either we need to cut down what we spend on terrorism or we need to have an equalling out affect to happen fast.
This POTUS (Barack Obama) stated the other day after the latest mass shooting was his 15th press release on them.
I must also add that same day 4 people in the city of Philadelphia were killed at the same time this news story broke, yet there was no mention about it on any news outlet, except for the local ones surrounding the city of Philadelphia.
Regardless of that happening in Philly that same day without the media taking hold of it, Obama did say that "the reporting is routine." Obama went on to say that his "response here at this podium ends up being routine, the conversation in the aftermath of it. We've become numb to this." He then went on to ask all news organizations to tally up the number of Americans killed through terrorist attacks in the last decade and compare it with the number of Americans who have died in gun violence.
Accordingly to the writers at CNN, and them using numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, they found that from 2001 to 2013, 406,496 people died by firearms on U.S. soil. (2013 is the most recent year CDC data for deaths by firearms is available.) This data covered all manners of death, including homicide, accident and suicide.
And, that according to the U.S. State Department, the number of U.S. citizens killed overseas as a result of incidents of terrorism from 2001 to 2013 was 350.
In addition, CNN compiled all terrorism incidents inside the U.S. and found that between 2001 and 2013, there were 3,030 people killed in domestic acts of terrorism.* This brings the total to 3,380.
That is not normal how we think about the two issues here. We get free reign to spend whatever to thwart terrorism which I respect, we also have lost so many civil liberties in the process but then again, the same goes to try thwart gun violence. Mat Welch from Reason stated on the real Time With Bill Maher show Friday night that was why initially, that the 'stop and frisk' laws were set in place in most major cities in America. I think in either case that if one has nothing to hide, than it is mostly OK, however for the [people that do have things to hide, it is not good for the likes of them.
There have been 3 lawsuits to attempt to hold gun makers, sellers liable for shootings in 2015 so far. There was a legal complaint set up in Newtown, Connecticut after that horrid shooting and that lawsuit is relating the death of children with violence. The complaint tells about of the dead children throughout it. Jesse Lewis, 6, an only child, loved riding horses. His last meal was an egg sandwich with hot chocolate. Dylan Hockley, 6, loved garlic bread and the moon. His favorite color was purple. Benjamin Wheeler, 6, wanted to be an architect, a paleontologist or a lighthouse keeper. The three died Dec. 14, 2012, when Adam Lanza opened fire inside Sandy Hook Elementary School.
They did the same thing describing the murdered people in Oregon this week when they read the names of those victims. They prefaced every one of them with something they believed in and liked to do. One was an animal activist if I remember correct but regardless of those tactics if you will, the suit had been filed in federal court in Connecticut in January, Soto et al. v. Bushmaster Firearms International, LLC. That is one of several lawsuits making their way through the court that seek money damages from gun shops and manufacturers. However, other than talking about the likes of the victims and what they did for the world, these cases have no weight per se and it is because of a decade-old federal law that I mentioned above (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act) and that gives the gun industry total immunity to never be sued.
Here’s a look at the law:
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
President George W. Bush along with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist sign the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields the firearms industry from civil lawsuits brought by victims of gun crimes, on Oct. 26, 2005, in Washington. The legislation at the core of gun lawsuits is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Signed into law by President George W. Bush and by Dick Cheney in 2005. That law restricts there from being any civil lawsuits set up by crime victims against gun makers and sellers.
It first came about after the DC Killings when there were many law suits filed and therefore, the gun industry challenged a series of setbacks because of them. Among them was a suit brought up in New York City claiming how gun manufacturers and sellers had allowed their weapons to be sold in illegal markets, creating a public nuisance, and 2002 California legislation explicitly allowing suits against gun manufacturers.
The gun industry claimed at that time how civil law suits had cost it more than $100 million, and members of Congress began to voice concern about the fate of military weapon suppliers if the entire industry went bankrupt. “Where will our soldiers get the arms they need to protect our freedoms?” asked Rep. Candice S. Miller, R-Mich., according to the Los Angeles Times. “From France? From Germany?”
The law put the National Rifle Association against gun safety organizations. In the Washington Post that year, it had stated that the legislation “barely pretends to be anything other than a special-interest gimme designed to shield the gun industry from lawsuits.”
The debate was that if gun manufacturers and retailers are not held responsible, who pays when a mass shooting or another gun tragedy happens? It was stipulated back then in 2005.
Then, with the Newtown massacre of those kids and when other mass shootings occurred, was when Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., introduced the Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act. That would then hone in that law enacted in 2005 law by then allowing suits when manufacturers, wholesalers and dealers are negligent in the ways described in this article.
That law “denies the victims of gun violence and their families their day in court, and in doing so it protects the worst actors in the gun industry,” Schiff said.
The current law does include a few exceptions that allow gun manufacturers and retailers to be held liable: (1) when a manufacturer or seller knowingly falsifies federal or state records about the gun (however, it is against the Federal Law to alter or change any Federal Court Document or State Court Document anyway), (2) when a manufacturer or seller sells a gun to someone who they know is prohibited from having a gun (that means nothing without any national background check registry set in place), and (3) when a design defect directly results in property damage, physical injuries or death (which is negated because of the guns are manufactured today and is very hard to prove).
The exceptions of this is in the sates of Connecticut, Wisconsin and Alaska.
Currently, there are three cases being seen today and that were brought forth which are:
1. The Newtown suit
Two years after Adam Lanza went into the Sandy Hook Elementary School to for some reason, killed what were 20 children and six school staff members, the victims’ families announced plans to sue file suit against the manufacturer of the gun Lanza used, a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle. They also added that the shop that sold the gun to Lanza to be part of that suit. The complaint, accuses the manufacturer and the seller total "disregard of the unreasonable risks the rifle posed outside of specialized, highly regulated institutions like the armed forces and law enforcement.” The Plaintiff's stated in the complaint how the gun maker and store owner should have known "that people unfit to operate the weapons would gain access to them." Most notably in that case, the plaintiff's state that, "Bushmaster should have known of the “unreasonably high risk” that the rifle would be used in a mass shooting."
They state how the AR-15 is designed as a "military weapon, engineered to deliver maximum carnage with extreme efficiency,” and that how its design of it features “exceptional muzzle velocity, the ability to accommodate large-capacity magazines, and effective rapid fire.”
Both the Plaintiff's involved in that law suit and The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms industry that happens to be also located in Newtown, have not commented on the lawsuit to any media outlet covering it. The NRA also did not respond to anything with regard to that law suit and let alone about the suit that that they most likely feel should be shielded by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act legislation.
The Newtown case takes a different approach than many other law suits vs. gun sellers and directed at the gun manufacturing industry.
It focuses on negligence by the seller and by the manufacturer. And, it focuses on why we have assault types of weaponry readily available for sale to the general public. The legal angle is how it is negligent to allow assault styled weapons like we use at war and during war's pose a danger to a person not trained to use it. "While other lawsuits have focused on problems with the sale of a gun, this one claims that by introducing the Bushmaster AR-15 gun into the marketplace, the manufacturer should be held liable."
This is the first time this has been raised in any court system. Many legal experts have raised doubts on the lawsuit’s chances of success. Nicholas Johnson, a law professor at Fordham University states that “it’s almost exactly the sort of claim that the legislation was designed to prevent,” I think it keeps the conversation going but at the same time, no one really talks about the suit today. Even the victims families that were interviewed this week on major media outlets never said one word about it.
2. The Badger Guns case
In April this year, a gun lawsuit hit the courts in Wisconsin. The Norberg et al. vs. Badger Guns Inc. et al., is set forth because of injuries occurring when two Milwaukee police officers who were shot in 2009 by an 18-year-old kid named Julius Burton. They tried to pull him over for riding his bicycle on the sidewalk and were somehow shot because of it. The officers say that Badger Guns, is liable because the store should have known it was illegal to sell the handgun to an underage kid at the time. The under aged kid was however, with a friend that happened to be 21 years old. The lawsuit is set up because the gun store owner and sales person should have known that buyer of the gun was the under aged kid which had been stipulated clearly on the purchase slip. On that slip, it was written that the 21-year-old was not the buyer of the gun, let alone would not have been the owner.
The gun shop's defense is that that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act protects it from any liabilities in such a claim.
The officers claim how “it was a straw buy,” and how it's “our contention that there were plenty of legitimate red flags that surround the purchase.”
This Badger Guns gained national notoriety in 2005 when federal data showed it was the nation’s top seller of guns linked to crimes (537 of its guns were recovered by police). In that claim, the Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Jeffrey Conen ruled in favor of the officers in January 2014. It found the claim met one of the exceptions of the legislation, clearing the way for the upcoming trial.
3. A challenge in Alaska
This claim is basically a wrongful death lawsuit. In 2006, Simone Kim was fatally shot while painting at a Juneau supermarket. Later, a drifter named Jason Coday was convicted in the killing. The Kim family filed a wrongful death suit, alleging that a gun dealer illegally sold Coday the gun without a proper background check. The lawsuit alleges that Coday went to Rayco Sales and walked out with the gun after putting $200 on the counter as a bribe to be able to get it.
The gun shop owner told a very different story saying that when Coday came into the store, that he wasn’t interested in buying a gun that day. Coday evidently then put on his backpack as if he was going to leave the store, that the seller then walked away from the area. It was told that the gun shop employee saw the $200 in cash on a counter later on, and and he then realized that the gun had been stolen by Coday from the counter. It was also told that the gun seller quickly began to search for Coday and that he was not to be blamed for the bribery and/or the negligence.
Therefore, did Coday steal the gun without the sales clerk's knowledge or was there a bribe in action? Either way, there is negligence but one is willful knowledge and one was just for walking away while guns lay down on the counter with the great ease to swipe. A trial judge eventually dismissed the claim because its ruling was that of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. However, it was appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court that then ruled the case could go forward, saying it was not barred if the gun was sold illegally without the seller doing a background check. It went back to the trial courts in Alaska.
It does turn out that licensed gun dealers have a protection that no other gun dealer has because think about it this way, if someone walks into anyone's house to steal their guns when it is not locked up in a safe manner, and then they take those guns to shoot people or to use it in crimes, whomever can indeed be sued for negligence.
Conversely, if it is a licensed gun dealer, and somebody does that to them, they would be protected by this law.
Overall, this issue needs to dealt with by the root. Which is by law. If we start by fixing that law, we can then start to place together the other pieces of it. Like doing national background checks. Like changing up the gun show loop hole and like to not allow there to be assault weapons sold to the general public. Until then, it will not stop. And, I will realize that no one is serious about gun safety issues.
Because i maintain that any firm believers of that antiquated 2nd amendment (which the forefathers that enacted our amendments wrote them up to be altered and amended; it does not have to be written in stone so to speak like people make it out to be), have lost their privilege today. There is nothing wrong with a responsible gun manufacturer, gun seller and gun user. That's is not what this aimed to be against. It is for the corrupt people. Besides, if "Corporations are People Too My Friends," those corporations that make guns and sell them, should have morals too. It should nit be only about that other Amendment (14th) where it is only about creating as much profits and with as much profit margin as possible. I maintain there should be a moral fiber to that amendment too.
Also and occasionally, a lobbying client may refer to a bill number from a previous Congress, either in error or because they are lobbying on a bill that has not yet been assigned a number. In these cases, it will appear as though they are lobbying on the bill sharing that number in the Congress in which they are filing, which in most cases is a different bill entirely.
To see more information about the bill the client is lobbying on, you can look at the specific report under the "Report images" tab below on the lobbying client's profile page.
Here is a list of them from 2014 at the Center for Responsive Politics:
| Bill Number | Congress | Bill Title | No. of Reports & Specific Issues* |
|---|---|---|---|
| H.R.1565 | 113 | Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act of 2013 | 4 |
| H.R.332 | 113 | Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act | 4 |
| H.R.452 | 113 | Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2013 | 4 |
| S.54 | 113 | Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act of 2013 | 4 |
| S.649 | 113 | Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013 | 3 |
| H.R.4783 | 113 | Promoting Healthy Minds for Safer Communities Act of 2014 | 3 |
| H.R.4806 | 113 | Pause for Safety Act of 2014 | 3 |
| H.R.4906 | 113 | Protecting Domestic Violence and Stalking Victims Act | 3 |
| S.1290 | 113 | Protecting Domestic Violence and Stalking Victims Act of 2013 | 3 |
| S.2445 | 113 | Pause for Safety Act of 2014 | 3 |
| S.2483 | 113 | Lori Jackson Domestic Violence Survivor Protection Act | 3 |
| Bill Number | Congress | Bill Title | No. of Reports & Specific Issues* |
|---|---|---|---|
| H.R.1217 | 114 | Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act of 2015 | 1 |
| H.R.1701 | 114 | Second Amendment Enforcement Act of 2015 | 1 |
| H.R.1706 | 114 | Real Education for Healthy Youth Act of 2015 | 1 |
| H.R.1885 | 114 | Securing Access to Rural Postal Services Act of 2015 | 1 |
| H.R.224 | 114 | To require the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service to submit to Congress an annual report on the effects of gun violence on public health. | 1 |
| H.R.368 | 114 | Safe and Responsible Gun Transfer Act | 1 |
| H.R.402 | 114 | National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015 | 1 |
| H.R.410 | 114 | Pause for Safety Act of 2015 | 1 |
| H.R.752 | 114 | Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act | 1 |
| H.R.923 | 114 | Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015 | 1 |
| H.R.986 | 114 | Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015 | 1 |
| S.213 | 114 | Look-Alike Weapons Safety Act of 2015 | 1 |
| S.498 | 114 | Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015 | 1 |
| S.551 | 114 | Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015 | 1 |
| S.874 | 114 | Second Amendment Enforcement Act of 2015 | 1 |
If you believe that there is an error, please e-mail the Center for Responsive Politics at info@crp.org. They will attempt to correct it.
| Iran Sanctions Lifted After Nuclear Compliance Confirmed |
International sanctions on Iran were lifted Saturday after the U.N. nuclear agency said Tehran honored its commitment to scale back its nuclear program. The International Atomic Energy Agency verified Saturday that Iran was in full compliance, triggering the removal of sanctions imposed by the United Nations, United States and European Union. The sanctions have cut off a nation of nearly 80 million from the global financial system. As a result, Tehran could not capitalize on oil exports and ordinary Iranians felt the economic sting. Before the sanctions were officially lifted, Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said it was a very good day for the Iranian people.
Three Iranian-Americans arrived in Germany after leaving Tehran on Sunday in a prisoner swap that followed the lifting of most international sanctions on Iran under a deal U.S. President Barack Obama said cut off Tehran's path to a nuclear bomb.
In a sign of sustained readiness to track Iranian compliance with remaining United Nations curbs, the United States imposed fresh sanctions on 11 companies and individuals for supplying Iran's ballistic missile program.
The Obama administration had delayed the step for more than two weeks during tense negotiations to free five American prisoners, according to people familiar with the matter. Iran conducted a precision-guided ballistic missile test last October, violating a U.N. ban.
Speaking after the released Americans had left Iran, Obama said Iran now would not "get its hands on a nuclear bomb" and the planet would be more secure.
"This is a good day because once again we are seeing what’s possible through strong American diplomacy," Obama said at the White House. "These things are a reminder of what we can achieve when we lead with strength and with wisdom."
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani hailed the nuclear deal as a "golden page" in Iran's history and said the agreement could be used as a model to resolve other regional issues.
The lifting of sanctions and the prisoner deal considerably reduce the hostility between Tehran and Washington that has shaped the Middle East since Iran's Islamic Revolution in 1979.
A Swiss plane took Jason Rezaian, the Washington Post's Tehran bureau chief; Saeed Abedini, a pastor from Idaho; and Amir Hekmati, a former U.S. Marine from Flint, Michigan, as well as some family members, from Tehran to Geneva, Switzerland.
Shortly afterward, the three left for a U.S. military base in Germany, arriving there later on Sunday, a U.S. State Department official said.
One more Iranian-American released under the same swap, Nosratollah Khosravi-Roodsari, was not aboard the aircraft. A fifth prisoner, American student Matthew Trevithick, was released separately on Saturday, a U.S. official said.
Several Iranian-Americans held in U.S. prisons after being charged or convicted for sanctions violations have also been released, their lawyers told Reuters on Sunday.
Rezaian told two Post senior editors in a phone call on Sunday night that he was doing "a hell of a lot better than I was 48 hours ago."
The newspaper, which released details of the conversation with Rezaian, said he "found escape in the fiction he was allowed to read, and today he was avidly reading whatever he wanted."
Rezaian, 39, was arrested in July 2014 and sentenced in November to a prison term. Iranian prosecutors had accused him of espionage, charges the Post had dismissed as "absurd."
Obama called family members of the released prisoners on Sunday, including Rezaian's brother Ali, and Naghmeh Abedini, the wife of the Idaho pastor.
“I am thankful for our president and all of the hard work by the White House and State Department in making this happen,” said Abedini, who has appeared with U.S. Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz, a U.S. senator and a harsh critic of the Iran nuclear deal.
The American Iranian Council, which promotes better relationships between the United States and Iran, said in a statement on Sunday: "The prisoner exchange, Iran's dutiful implementation of its nuclear obligations, and the lifting of nuclear-related sanctions all herald a new era of US-Iran relations.”
But the U.S. thaw with Iran is viewed with deep suspicion by U.S. Republicans as well as allies of Washington in the Middle East, including Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Cruz and fellow Republican presidential candidate Senator Marco Rubio praised Iran's release of five detained Americans on Sunday, but said the deal the White House made to win their freedom would lead to more Americans being taken "hostage."
US to pay Iran $1.7 billion debt and interest says John Kerry whom is on the show today too in his first interview since this all went down. The United States is to repay Iran a $400 million debt and $1.3 billion in interest dating to the Islamic revolution, Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday. The repayment, which settles a suit brought under an international legal tribunal, is separate from the tens of billions of dollars in frozen foreign accounts that Iran can now access after the end of nuclear sanctions.
But the timing of the announcement, one day after the implementation of the Iran nuclear accord, will be seen as pointing to a broader clearing of the decks between the old foes.
US President Barack Obama defended the settlement in a televised statement from the White House, saying it was for "much less than the amount Iran sought."
"For the United States, the settlement could save us billions of dollars that could have been pursued by Iran. There was no benefit to the United States in dragging this out," he said.
Kerry said the claim was in the amount of a $400 million trust fund used by Iran to purchase military equipment from the United States prior to the break in diplomatic ties, plus $1.3 billion in interests.
Iranian-US ties broke down in 1979 after revolutionaries -- angered at US support for the Iran's deposed monarch -- stormed the American embassy and took hostages.
In 1981, the Iran-US Claims tribunal was established in The Hague to settle outstanding debts between the two countries, and Tehran filed a suit demanding the arms payment be returned.
Kerry described Sunday's payment of the 35-year-old trust as a "fair settlement." But the debt deal immediately drew the ire of those in Washington who think the Obama administration had already made too many concessions to secure the nuclear deal.
"Lining the pockets of the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism is not a strategy that will keep America safe, and Hillary Clinton should immediately condemn this payment," said a statement from Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee.
“While it is a relief to see unjustly held Americans returned home to their families," Priebus said, "the Clinton-Obama nuclear agreement gives Iran too much in return for too little."
Kerry, in defending the agreement, said that "Iran's recovery was fixed at a reasonable rate of interest and therefore Iran is unable to pursue a bigger tribunal award against us, preventing US taxpayers from being obligated to a larger amount of money."
He went on to say all of the US claims against Iran at the tribunal had long been settled and had netted American companies and individuals $2.5 billion.
But Kerry added there are more Iranian claims pending and that the United States would try to negotiate to resolve them.
.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Regardless of it all, please stay in touch!
