Historic third veto of Missouri governor is overridden!

[MKSheppard]

I am a bad boy, I forgot to dress my links

House overrides third Holden veto
By David A. Lieb
Associated Press
09/12/2003

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) -- In a historic rebuff of a

Missouri governor, lawmakers overrode a third veto of Democratic Gov. Bob Holden -- this time, declaring it illegal for governments to sue the gun industry over the social costs of gun violence.

The House vote Friday on the gun lawsuits legislation came just one day after the Legislature legalized concealed guns and imposed new abortion restrictions in a pair of veto overrides.

Until this week, Missouri lawmakers had overridden just three vetoes since the Civil War. And never in Missouri history had a Legislature overridden vetoes on more than one issue in a single year.

Veto overrides require a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate. The House passed the gun lawsuits bill by an announced 116-36 vote; the Senate overrode the veto by a 23-10 vote Thursday. To succeed, the Republican majority needed -- and got -- the support of some Democrats in both chambers.

The legislation prohibits cities, counties, the state or any other political subdivision from bringing lawsuits against gun and ammunition manufacturers, dealers and trade associations relating to lawfully made and distributed products.

It allows individuals to sue, however, to recover damages for deaths or injuries caused by the negligent or defective design or manufacture of guns and ammunition.

The legislation is intended to halt a lawsuit filed in April 1999 by the city of St. Louis against numerous gun makers and dealers that seeks to recover an unspecified amount of money spent on dealing with gun violence.

Now pending in St. Louis County Circuit Court, the lawsuit alleges the firearms industry historically opposed laws on gun safety devices, gun warnings and tighter regulation of gun sales, and that it intentionally marketed products in a way that knowingly supplied guns to criminals.

The bill enacted Friday by the Legislature specifically states that it applies to pending lawsuits, as well as future ones.

Republican Senate President Pro Tem Peter Kinder, of Cape Girardeau, said the bill he sponsored makes "a statement of thus far and no further on the abuse of our litigation system with frivolous lawsuits."

But St. Louis city counselor Patti Hageman said the city would not drop its lawsuit and would challenge the new Missouri law if the gun industry amends its existing dismissal motions to cite the new law.

"The Legislature can't just come in and pass a retroactive law to apply to pending suits," Hageman said.

More than two dozen similar lawsuits -- seeking to recover law enforcement and public health expenses -- have been filed nationwide by cities and counties, according to the National Rifle Association.

Missouri is the 33rd state to enact a law prohibiting localities from filing such lawsuits, the NRA said.

Republican Rep. Larry Crawford, of California, Mo., who handled the bill in the House, compared the lawsuits against gun makers to governments suing pen companies on claims they caused people to write bad checks or suing the manufacturers of cigarette lighters on claims they caused people to commit arson.

Opponents of the bill said it would block legitimate legal claims and could prohibit the state attorney general from taking action to protect a group of harmed people.

"It borders on insanity to take the gun manufacturing industry and remove them from litigation," said Rep. Tom Villa, D-St. Louis. "It is patently absurd."

The bill also targets some of the specific language used in the gun lawsuits, which claim manufacturers have created a "public nuisance" with their products.

The bill puts into Missouri law that "the lawful design, marketing, manufacture, distribution or sale of firearms or ammunition to the public is not an abnormally dangerous activity and does not constitute a public or private nuisance."

Kinder and House Speaker Catherine Hanaway, R- Warson Woods, each said the veto overrides on the gun and abortion bills demonstrate that Holden is "out of touch" with the elected representatives of the people -- and with the views of most Missourians.

But Holden spokeswoman Mary Still countered it remains to be seen who is out of touch.

"What we're seeing is the Republicans are very in touch with the desires of special interests, but that does not necessarily reflect the needs and hopes and dreams of every day Missourians," Still said.

------

Gun lawsuits bill is SB13.

[Iceberg]

DRESS YER DAMN LINKS!!!

[Tsyroc]

But Holden spokeswoman Mary Still countered it remains to be seen who is out of touch.

"What we're seeing is the Republicans are very in touch with the desires of special interests, but that does not necessarily reflect the needs and hopes and dreams of every day Missourians," Still said..

What part of Missouri is she from? All of my Missouri relatives have plenty of guns and I doubt they'd ever think to bring litigation against a gun manufacturer for making a product that works the way it was intended.

I can see how people might be upset about manufacturers dumping lots of inexpensive weapons in certain areas, contributing to the gun crime rate, but defacto banning of firearms by litigating the companies out of business is worse.

I'm sure they got the idea from the tobacco settlements but in those cases the tobacco compaines had been purposely concealling and misrepresenting the truth about their product for decades. They're probably lucky that they got away with only paying out a bunch of money.

[MKSheppard]

I can see how people might be upset about manufacturers dumping lots of inexpensive weapons in certain areas, contributing to the gun crime rate

Actually a lot of cops use those cheep guns as drawback weapons, mounted
in a small ankle holster in case they lose or are forcibly removed from their
duty weapon in the line of duty. I remember a story about a cop sitting down
to take a shit and he accidentially dropped his drawback Lorcin onto the floor,
and it fired, putting a hole through the stalls (thankfully, no one was in them)

[Tsyroc]

I can see how people might be upset about manufacturers dumping lots of inexpensive weapons in certain areas, contributing to the gun crime rate

Actually a lot of cops use those cheep guns as drawback weapons, mounted
in a small ankle holster in case they lose or are forcibly removed from their
duty weapon in the line of duty. I remember a story about a cop sitting down
to take a shit and he accidentially dropped his drawback Lorcin onto the floor,
and it fired, putting a hole through the stalls (thankfully, no one was in them)

Maybe he might want to go with a safer drawback gun, perhaps one with a safety, or maybe a revolver with the hammer on an empty chamber.

[MKSheppard]

Maybe he might want to go with a safer drawback gun, perhaps one with a safety, or maybe a revolver with the hammer on an empty chamber.

Revolvers are heavy and expensive. Lorcins are $75 instead of $600, which
you would pay for a decent Beretta or Colt pocket gun.

[Glocksman]

Now if we could only get Maryland to adopt a 'shall issue' system.

[Glocksman]

Something else about the Missouri override.

I've noticed that a lot of reports mention the referendum that failed in 1999 and present this override as going against the wishes of the people.

That's not quite true.

The 1999 referendum took place in an off year election and had a turnout of only 30% of eligible voters. The referendum failed by only a few percentage points.

The will of 15 some odd percent of Missouri voters isn't 'the will of the majority'.

If a true majority of Missourians are against this, it'll be repealed after all of the legislators who voted to override are defeated and replaced by the Brady Campaign people who'll make this an issue.

Of course, I dobut anyone who voted for this will lose his seat because of the vote. Missouri is a fairly conservative state.

Hell, Ashcroft would probably still be in the Senate if Jean Carnahan hadn't gotten the sympathy vote for her dead husband and son.

[Perinquus]

Maybe he might want to go with a safer drawback gun, perhaps one with a safety, or maybe a revolver with the hammer on an empty chamber.

Revolvers are heavy and expensive. Lorcins are $75 instead of $600, which
you would pay for a decent Beretta or Colt pocket gun.

In the first place, there is no need whatever to carry a modern double action revolver with an empty chamber. They all use either a rebounding hammer or a transfer bar safety to make sure that when the hammer is down, the firing pin has no physical contact with the primer of the cartrdge, therefore there is no way to make the gun fire apart from pulling through on the trigger. If you carry the gun with the hammer on an empty chamber, you are not really increasing its safety, merely depriving yourself of a potentially badly needed shot.

In the second place, not all revolvers are large or heavy. You can get a snub-nosed, alloy-framed, five shot revolver that's easily small enough to put in a pocket, or wear in an ankle holster, and light enough to carry comfortably all day. (However, I prefer a small automatic, and carry a Kahr Mk40 as a backup, which is absolutely the smallest gun you can get in such a powerful caliber. It's a .40 cal. the size of most .380s.)

And in the third place, a lot of departments, including mine, will not allow an officer to carry one of these cheap pieces of shit like a Lorcin, a Jennings, or a High Point. They are unreliable, and their design makes them prone to accidental discharges. Nobody should carry one anyway. Yes, they are cheap, which makes them attractive to people on a budget, but think about it: if you are in need of a backup, it means you are seriously deep shit, and your primary weapon in unavailable to you. Nothing less than you life is at stake. Why the hell would you want to settle for an unreliable piece of junk, and bet your one and only life on it? Isn't your life worth enough to you to spend a couple of hundred dollars extra, and be sure that you can get something reliable?