"retailers who function as bad guy magnets"

"Researchers at the University of California, Davis studied data from gun ownership records compiled by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for 2,121 crime guns recovered in the state from people younger than 25.
"Our objective was to determine whether there was a pattern among crime-gun ownership," said the study's author, Dr. Garen J. Wintemute. "There are patterns. This isn't random. Guns don't just arise out of the asphalt available for use."
The study, published in the June issue of Annals of Emergency Medicine, found that a disproportionate number of gun retailers provided the state's crime guns.
Of the approximately 4,000 licensed gun dealers in the state, 10 provided about one in six of the guns studied. Wintemute said he was prohibited from releasing the names of those sellers.
"A very small number of outlets account for a large percentage of California's crime guns," Wintemute said, adding they also have a time to crime of less than three years. "There appear to be retailers who function as bad guy magnets." "

http://www.ktvu.com/news/3348453/detail.html

It is outrageous that the researchers are prohibited rom sharing those names with the public.....but part of the disgrace that amnounts from letting the gun lobby set public policy.

Releasing the names would give them warning, and make it harder to nail them.

but in fact, the Tiahrt amendment (passed with little fanfare this spring) makes it illegal to release such info...and makes it harder to track such things.

There is a community interest in knowing these outfits for things like local land use regulation, etc.

Whether or not there is any criminal activity, a local jurisdiction and its citizens should know if mis-behaving merchants are in their community. Similar to liquor stores in some areas - as demonstrated crime magnets they may be subject to more stringent local regulations (hours restrictions, etc.)

Or are we at a point where gun stores cannot be regulated as any other local business?

to give them special immunity from liability laws that was defeated by the Democrats, led by John Kerry and John Edwards.

To forbid local communities from using land use or licensing regulations to restrict gun shops.

The 2nd amendment is absolute, right?

exempted firing ranges from environmental law...disgraceful!

...that he actually went to work instead of out campaigning on the taxpayer's nickel.



*****************************
S 659 IS


108th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 659
To prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 19, 2003
Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. BOND, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. BUNNING, Mr. BURNS, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. COLEMAN, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. CRAPO, Mrs. DOLE, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. ENZI, Mr. FRIST, Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. GREGG, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. HATCH, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. KYL, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mrs. LINCOLN, Mr. LOTT, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. MILLER, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, Mr. NICKLES, Mr. REID, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. SMITH, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. SUNUNU, Mr. TALENT, and Mr. THOMAS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

(a) FINDINGS- The Congress finds the following:

(1) Citizens have a right, protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, to keep and bear arms.

(2) Lawsuits have been commenced against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms that operate as designed and intended, which seek money damages and other relief for the harm caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including criminals.

(3) The manufacture, importation, possession, sale, and use of firearms and ammunition in the United States are heavily regulated by Federal, State, and local laws. Such Federal laws include the Gun Control Act of 1968, the National Firearms Act, and the Arms Export Control Act.

(4) Businesses in the United States that are engaged in interstate and foreign commerce through the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, importation, or sale to the public of firearms or ammunition that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce are not, and should not, be liable for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products or ammunition products that function as designed and intended.

(5) The possibility of imposing liability on an entire industry for harm that is solely caused by others is an abuse of the legal system, erodes public confidence in our Nation's laws, threatens the diminution of a basic constitutional right and civil liberty, invites the disassembly and destabilization of other industries and economic sectors lawfully competing in the free enterprise system of the United States, and constitutes an unreasonable burden on interstate and foreign commerce of the United States.

(6) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal Government, States, municipalities, and private interest groups are based on theories without foundation in hundreds of years of the common law and jurisprudence of the United States and do not represent a bona fide expansion of the common law. The possible sustaining of these actions by a maverick judicial officer or petit jury would expand civil liability in a manner never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution, by Congress, or by the legislatures of the several States. Such an expansion of liability would constitute a deprivation of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

(b) PURPOSES- The purposes of this Act are as follows:

(1) To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products for the harm caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.

(2) To preserve a citizen's access to a supply of firearms and ammunition for all lawful purposes, including hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive or recreational shooting.

(3) To guarantee a citizen's rights, privileges, and immunities, as applied to the States, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to section 5 of that Amendment.

(4) To prevent the use of such lawsuits to impose unreasonable burdens on interstate and foreign commerce.

(5) To protect the right, under the First Amendment to the Constitution, of manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and trade associations, to speak freely, to assemble peaceably, and to petition the Government for a redress of their grievances.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON BRINGING OF QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTIONS IN FEDERAL OR STATE COURT.

(a) IN GENERAL- A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court.

(b) DISMISSAL OF PENDING ACTIONS- A qualified civil liability action that is pending on the date of enactment of this Act shall be immediately dismissed by the court in which the action was brought.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS- The term `engaged in the business' has the meaning given that term in section 921(a)(21) of title 18, United States Code, and, as applied to a seller of ammunition, means a person who devotes, time, attention, and labor to the sale of ammunition as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of ammunition.

(2) MANUFACTURER - The term `manufacturer' means, with respect to a qualified product, a person who is engaged in the business of manufacturing the product in interstate or foreign commerce and who is licensed to engage in business as such a manufacturer under chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code.

(3) PERSON- The term `person' means any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, joint stock company, or any other entity, including any governmental entity.

(4) QUALIFIED PRODUCT- The term `qualified product' means a firearm (as defined in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 921(a)(3) of title 18, United States Code), including any antique firearm (as defined in section 921(a)(16) of such title), or ammunition (as defined in section 921(a)(17) of such title), or a component part of a firearm or ammunition, that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

(5) QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTION-

(A) IN GENERAL- The term `qualified civil liability action' means a civil action brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include--

(i) an action brought against a transferor convicted under section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code, or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so convicted;

(ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;

(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly and willfully violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought;

(iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product; or

(v) an action for physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended.

(B) NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT- In subparagraph (A)(ii), the term `negligent entrustment' means the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person and others.

(6) SELLER- The term `seller' means, with respect to a qualified product--

(A) an importer (as defined in section 921(a)(9) of title 18, United States Code) who is engaged in the business as such an importer in interstate or foreign commerce and who is licensed to engage in business as such an importer under chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code;

(B) a dealer (as defined in section 921(a)(11) of title 18, United States Code) who is engaged in the business as such a dealer in interstate or foreign commerce and who is licensed to engage in business as such a dealer under chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code; or

(C) a person engaged in the business of selling ammunition (as defined in section 921(a)(17) of title 18, United States Code) in interstate or foreign commerce at the wholesale or retail level, consistent with Federal, State, and local law.

(7) STATE- The term `State' includes each of the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other territory or possession of the United States, and any political subdivision of any such place.

(8) TRADE ASSOCIATION- The term `trade association' means any association or business organization (whether or not incorporated under Federal or State law) that is not operated for profit, and 2 or more members of which are manufacturers or sellers of a qualified product.

and it died a deserved death.

... Life is like a jar of jalapeños. What you do today May burn your ass tomorrow.

You mean you think he should suck up to the scum of the earth?

from stem to stern....

Hilariously, when it went down to well deserved defeat, it also revealed what a dishonest pile of crap those "There is no gun show loophole" and "The AWB doesn't do anything" arguments really are.

You DO know Kerry was in the Senate in 1994, and thus pretty fucking unlikely to vote on a House Resolution, don't you?

...the Senate side if you wish, or the same bill in later years.

Who gives a steaming crap?

...likes and dislikes. Geez, try and do something nice for someone and what do you get....

an eminently sensible piece of legislation that ought to be passed into law.

...soccer moms happy. How does he do on real legislation? You know, stuff that works.

showed what a steaming pantload that argument was.

...steaming pantloads if they think it will be politically expedient for them.

Who the FUCK do you think you're kidding?

Why would they not scuttle a billl they'd been fighting for for years, just on a whim?

Ask somebody else...

and it shows what a pantload that "it's only a feel good bill" REALLY is.

...political heroes loaded it up with to kill it. I wonder how many dead kids will result from killing this bill...

but they did show how phony these RKBA arguments are.

"I wonder how many dead kids will result from killing this bill..."
Not a fucking one....blame the gun lobby for those dead kids, not those trying to solve the problem. But it's fucking hilarious of you to pretend that exempting scummy gun dealers from liability for their criminal actions is going to harm anyone.

the sales of this "small number of outlets"?

Did they compute the number of crime guns as a function of total sales?

There might be reason to be concerned if a disproportionate percentage of a vendor's sales turned up as crime guns, but merely reporting that a high NUMBER of a vendor's sales were crime guns tells me nothing.

For example, if one vendor had ten percent of total sales, and also sold ten percent of the crime guns, so what?

n/t

n/t

usually knows that scientific journals contain at least some accuracy...unlike the crap peddled by Mary Rosh.

Yes, they generally do.

the province of such scum as this...

Did they compute the number of crime guns
as a function of total sales?

There might be reason to be concerned if
a disproportionate percentage of a vendor's
sales turned up as crime guns, but merely
reporting that a high NUMBER of a vendor's
sales were crime guns tells me nothing.

For example, if one vendor had ten percent
of total sales, and also sold ten percent
of the crime guns, so what?

Obviously it's a good question -- and I'd say it's equally obviously likely to have been addressed by the authors. The item was published in a peer-reviewed professional journal, after all ... not by the Fraser Institute or the local equivalent.

http://www.acep.org/annals
"Annals of Emergency Medicine is the official
publication of the American College of Emergency
Physicians."

Here's what the media report reported them as having found:

Of the approximately 4,000 licensed gun dealers in the state, 10 provided about one in six of the guns studied <i.e. used in crimes>.

Is it actually reasonable to think that 10 out of 4,000 licensed dealers sold 1 out of 6 of the guns sold in California, or even anywhere close to that -- 1/4 of 1% of dealers sold 17% of all guns sold?

Maybe. But I'd be doubting that more than I'd be thinking that the researchers went to all the bother of publishing, and publicizing, an essentially meaningless fact.

...is how active those dealers are, as we know how many guns they studied but not how many were sold. Most are the 4,000 will turn out to be people that have a dealer's license but do not sell much. Also, how many of the recovered weapons were actually used in a crime, beyond that of criminal possession. That make sense?



QUOTE
However, Wintemute acknowledged all guns recovered by police weren't necessarily directly involved in a crime because police who send guns to ATF for analysis aren't required to specify what crime was committed with a particular gun.
QUOTE

Also, how many of the recovered weapons were actually used in a crime, beyond that of criminal possession. That make sense?

Sure -- and it's even relevant -- IF there is some reason to think that some greater proportion of the "crime guns" sold by a particular dealer or dealers (particularly the big 10) were "crime guns" only by virtue of being illegally possesssed than in the case of other dealers.

Is there?

What we are getting at with the volume of sales question...
...is how active those dealers are, as we know how many guns they studied but not how many were sold.

Uh ... is there some way that it wasn't clear that this is exactly what I was talking about?

10 dealers out of 4,000 sold 1 out of 6 of the 2,121 "crime guns".

10 dealers sold 353 crime guns: an average of more than 35 guns per dealer.
3,990 dealers sold 1,768 crime guns: an average of less than 0.5 gun per dealer.

The 10 dealers sold, on average, 80 TIMES as many crime guns as the other 3,090 dealers sold, on average.

Yes, the question is: did those 10 dealers sell 80 times as many TOTAL guns, on average, as the other 3,990 dealers did, on average? Is this likely? I don't know. Perhaps a Californian will provide us with some information, even anecdotal, about the structure of the retail firearms industry in California.

There are many possible configurations even within those numbers. Dealer number 1 sold 1 in 10 of the crime guns all by itself, for instance. 3,900 dealers sold no crime guns at all, maybe, so the remaining 90 sold 5/6 of the crime guns, or about 19 each on average. And possibly all of their shares of the "crime gun market" reflect their shares of the total gun market.

We don't know from the media report. But undoubtedly the numbers are in the published article. Someone who wants to doubt what the media reports say about it, or the meaningfulness of the numbers reported, really oughta read it. (Perhaps reporters and their editors are too ignorant of things arithmetic to ask such questions when they are writing their reports?) Me, I just doubt that serious academics would go around publicizing numbers that were as meaningless as these would be if crime guns sales mirrored total gun sales.

Of course, that's assuming that this number is meaningless. Is it really meaningless that such a small number of dealers sold such a high proportion of crime guns, regardless of what their sales volume was? Should we just expect that X% of firearms sold by dealers will be used in crimes? Is this just all a matter of bad luck, that all dealers can expect to encounter at a certain rate?

There could always be the opposite theory -- that some dealers have such high sales volumes in part precisely because people who buy firearms that get used in crimes like to shop there. Obviously, the 2,120 "crime guns" studied represent only a fraction of actual "crime guns" (they represent only those confiscated from people under 25, to start with).

Remember that the time-to-crime was also considerably shorter, on average, for the guns sold by those dealers. Sales volume doesn't explain that one, I don't think.

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/alerts/reader/0,2061,570680,00.html

"A small group of retailers sold the majority of handguns. Less than five percent of gun dealers and pawnbrokers sold more than 500 handguns; they accounted for 52 percent of all handguns sold."

So five percent of the dealers (80 dealers) sold 52 percent of the handguns. Since I (like you) do not have the hard data, I will play with these numbers a bit. If I apply Pareto's Law to these two data (80 dealers and 52 Percent of guns sold), I find that 16 dealers (80 dealers times 20%) MAY have sold 41.6 percent (52% times 80%) of the guns.

So, in answer to your question: "Is it actually reasonable to think that 10 out of 4,000 licensed dealers sold 1 out of 6 of the guns sold in California, or even anywhere close to that -- 1/4 of 1% of dealers sold 17% of all guns sold?", I say, yes, it is possible. However, I would like to see more data on that 5 percent of dealers.

Yes, only handguns are discussed here, but, I believe, they are the most common "crime gun".

As regards your skepticism: "Maybe. But I'd be doubting that more than I'd be thinking that the researchers went to all the bother of publishing, and publicizing, an essentially meaningless fact.", given the reported concentration of sales in a reletively few dealers, I say that publishing a meaningless fact is exactly what the researchers did.

Guns don't just arise out of the asphalt available for use.

Or grow on trees, or drop like lawn darts from the sky, or spring full-blown from Moses's forehead ...

.

the gun faery leaves them under cabbage leaves for bad little girls and boys....

here. :shrug:



---on edit--

From a search at the Annals of Emergency Medicine -- unfortunately, the article itself is available only by subscription / to members.

http://www.acep.org/1,33768,0.html

Recovered crime guns were found to have life cycles from sale to use in a crime of about 6.4 years. However, the amount of time until a gun was used in a crime differed by age groups and varied substantially with gun characteristics. In particular, more than one third of semiautomatic pistols, but less than 15 percent of rifles and revolvers, were used in a crime in less than three years from when they were sold.

Again, that changing firearms-ownership pattern, and the preference of certain people for certain types of firearms. Hunters use one type, criminals use another ...

(And just in case anyone thinks the statement quoted is ambiguous, it obviously means "one third of semautomatic pistols used in crimes were used in a crime in less than three years from when they were sold".)

"Overall, the time from a gun's sale to its use in a crime was longer in California than nationally," said Dr. Wintemute. "This may reflect state policies that interfere with the movement of guns into illegal commerce, such as prohibiting the direct transfers of guns between private parties, which is legal in many other states."

And yes, I'm sure there are loads of other theories ... and that life would have been even better if California issued licences to carry concealed firearms on demand.

Researchers found crime guns recovered from people ages 21 to 24 were likely purchased by someone of the same age group; those guns recovered from people younger than age 18 were likely to be purchased by a person age 45 or older.

The study also found evidence for "caliber creep:" small-caliber handguns made up 41 percent of handguns recovered from people younger than age 18, but only 25 percent of handguns recovered from people ages 21 to 24. Large-caliber semiautomatic pistols were most common when the criminal user of the handgun had purchased that gun himself.

California's gun control laws are having an effect on limitng the availability of guns to criminals....

...early release of violent offenders to clear jail space that California did last month will not help any either.

read it again.

...doing. It does not sound like much at all. Perhaps they should keep offenders in jail instead of using the "let's be nice to them" approach.




QUOTE
"We don't know what the situation would be like if those rules didn't exist," Wintemute said. "At least on paper, it's harder for 18- to 20-year-olds to get guns in California than in other states. It's illegal here and it's not in other states."
QUOTE

"We don't know what the situation would be like if those rules didn't exist," is what they say...not "we have no idea what the rules are."

You know, somebody who misreads that badly clearly is not somebody who ought to be doubting anyone else's credibility.

They admit in the article that they don't know
what the rules are doing

... because they are honest academics with integrity who actually stick to making observations, and decline to pretend that they have crystal balls with which to read those alternate time lines:

We don't know what the situation would be like
if those rules didn't exist.

Who the hell does, or can?

Maybe John Lott or Gary Mauser would like to try it sometime.

n/t