Ourview
Guns
deserve accountability
The U.S. Constitution is second only to
the Bible when it comes to texts that Americans
hold sacred. We rely on the strength of
the Constitution to protect us against inequality,
tyranny and other potential social evils.
The most substantial and universally accepted
purpose for our Constitution is to protect
our freedom — freedom to do what continues
to be debated.
The U.S. House has recently passed legislation
that would block most lawsuits against the
gun industry for harm caused my misuse by
others of firearms or ammunition. This legislation
is has been sent to the Senate and has “healthy
prospects for approval,” the Sacramento
Bee reported.
California’s Democratic Sen. Diane Feinstein
is leading the effort to filibuster the
legislation.
“I believe this legislation would give the
gun industry special treatment at the expense
of innocent Americans who have been harmed
by irresponsible actions by firearm manufacturers
and dealers,” Feinstein said. “No other
industry has this kind of blanket protection
against liability.”
We sue cigarette companies for legally selling
us cigarettes that cause cancer. Does the
same logic not apply to gun companies that
legally sell us guns that cause death?
If this legislation passes, the same logic
will not apply to both guns and cigarettes.
So people who willingly inhale death could
continue to sue and those who are victims
of another person’s bullet will have no
ability to gain compensation.
“These lawsuits are not brought by individuals
seeking relief for injuries done to them
by anyone in the industry,” chief sponsor
of the legislation, Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho,
told the Sacramento Bee. “Instead, this
is a politically inspired initiative trying
to force social goals through an end run
around the Congress and state legislators.”
Forcing social goals like ending smoking
through our legal system is completely acceptable.
The gun issue is a little trickier, mostly
because of the Second Amendment. The Second
Amendment provides an ambiguous protection
for citizens to own firearms. Cigarettes
are never mentioned.
The Second Amendment states: “A well-regulated
Militia being necessary to the security
of a free State, the right of the people
to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Some interpret this statement as meaning
that we have the right to own firearms if
we come under attack and have a need for
Militias. Others believe that this statement
means we have the right to shop at the mall
armed to the teeth if we so desire. Still
others believe that times have changed since
the Constitution was written and so should
some of our laws.
The real issue in this debate seems to be
whether or not victims of gun violence have
the right to sue gun companies. Lawmakers
appear to gravitate toward one side or other
of this debate based on where they stand
on the gun control issue even though this
proposed bill does not directly affect gun
control.
“Their only success is placing an enormous
financial burden on gun manufacturers,”
Rep. Brad Carson, D-Okla., told the Sacramento
Bee. “These litigation costs are passed
on to owners and make it more difficult
for law-abiding citizens to own guns.”
What’s wrong with making it difficult to
own a weapon? Maybe if it had been more
difficult, the Washington, D.C. area snipers
may not have been able to waste life so
easily. It is much harder to pull off a
drive-by stabbing.
Hopefully Feinstein will successfully filibuster
this bill. There is nothing wrong with holding
companies that manufacture the potential
for death to be held accountable in some
situations. This has been proven by the
numerous cases against the tobacco companies.
Allowing for possible law suits simply forces
gun companies to use more caution when distributing
weapons to our fellow citizens.
|
