Sportsmen beware, unless you're only an archer...

[MTGomer]

This is an interesting legal issue. We held big tobacco liable when it was proven they not only hid the effects of tobacco usage, but actively lobbied against any kind of regulation that would help protect consumers, even if it was a warning on the package of smokes. I think that it's an interesting legal theory, and not so sure the gun industry can stand up to it based on past case law. Essentially then, if a lawyer can prove that XYZ gun manaufacturer was directly involved in suppression of evidence about what causes gun violence, or spent significant money to lobby congress to not even look at ways to reduce gun violence, then there may actually be cause to sue them as a matter of public health.

@Moonraker33's pithy comment is funny, but not applicable to the situaton the Secratary is looking at. Plus, it would still need to be litigated all the way to the Supreme Court, and even with a conservative court, the precedent stands, no?

As for the president & Coal - it's easy to get wrapped around the axle of the clean power plan (it's been stayed so not in play at the moment), but the global market for coal is tanking due to other nations moving away from fossil fuels and towards renewables. China was our biggest customer for coal and they've reduced demand significantly over the last year or so. Beyond those economic factors, you have a glut of natural gas which is driving down the cost of coal, and is being used as a bridge to transition away from coal because it's cheaper, cleaner and easier to convert a station to gas as opposed to upgrading coal facilities to meet those evil emission standards for clean air.

Pretty big difference here.
Using tobacco the way it is intended to be used is deadly. A firearm isn't.
If target shooting, elk hunting, or having an inanimate piece of steel occupying space in a safe was -in itself- a detriment to the owner's health, and the firearm manufactuere tried to hide that, then we would be talking apples to apples, but it isn't and we aren't.
Remington was held responsible for the model 700 mishaps, as they should have been. It was a manufacturers defect that was killing people. No different than if a safety feature on an automobile malfunctioned and hurt/killed someone. My mom's cousin successfully sued Ford when her car combusted in her garage and burned down her home a few years ago. (Ford later recalled that model) That is entirely different than if she would have used her vehicle with malicious intent, hurt someone, and that person then sued Ford.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Pretty big difference here.
Using tobacco the way it is intended to be used is deadly. A firearm isn't.
If target shooting, elk hunting, or having an inanimate piece of steel occupying space in a safe was -in itself- a detriment to the owner's health, and the firearm manufactuere tried to hide that, then we would be talking apples to apples, but it isn't and we aren't.
Remington was held responsible for the model 700 mishaps, as they should have been. It was a manufacturers defect that was killing people. No different than if a safety feature on an automobile malfunctioned and hurt/killed someone. My mom's cousin successfully sued Ford when her car combusted in her garage and burned down her home a few years ago. (Ford later recalled that model) That is entirely different than if she would have used her vehicle with malicious intent, hurt someone, and that person then sued Ford.

A pack of camels in a safe doesn't pose a health risk at all. It's exactly the same as a gun sitting in a safe. But that's not what big tobacco was sued over. They were sued over their lobbying practices that hid the effects of tobacco use and using their corporate influence to create a culture of fear over doing something about it in the public sector. That's pretty similar to what certain organizations have done regarding things like having the CDC look at gun violence from a public health perspective.

I'm a gun owner, and not supportive of new gun control measures in general, but I think the gun industry has a pretty soft underbelly they've left exposed on this one.

 

[dcopas78]

Tobacco regulation has virtually eliminated tobacco farming. It is nearly all imported now. I'm in the middle of what used to be one of the largest tobacco producing areas in the world, and I used to farm it. They ability to sue the tobacco companies lead to the end of tobacco in my area. It was already going downhill, this just drove in the final nail. I have no doubt that simular firearms regulations would eventually do the same. I'm not taken sides with any candidate, but just speaking about what legislation like this can do to an industry. Was the tabacco industry wrong? Most certainly. But it is still the person's choice to pick up the cigarette. Much like someone picking up the gun and pulling the trigger.

 

[fowladdict]

Tobacco regulation has virtually eliminated tobacco farming. It is nearly all imported now. I'm in the middle of what used to be one of the largest tobacco producing areas in the world, and I used to farm it. They ability to sue the tobacco companies lead to the end of tobacco in my area. It was already going downhill, this just drove in the final nail. I have no doubt that simular firearms regulations would eventually do the same. I'm not taken sides with any candidate, but just speaking about what legislation like this can do to an industry. Was the tabacco industry wrong? Most certainly. But it is still the person's choice to pick up the cigarette. Much like someone picking up the gun and pulling the trigger.

Or drinking too much Beam, Crown or Pappy's.

 

[u1299]

Well if you are a single issue voter, life is easy. Are you saying that no Democrat ever has voted for selling a single acres of public lands? We all have political opinions and you know what they say about opinions, they are like another part of the human anatomy we all have.

So good on with your voting record. That and $5 will get you a cup of coffee at any Starbucks.

Nemont

Never been a single issue voter, never, (I thought the single issue voters were the die hard NRA 2nd amendment guys), just can't imagine one day waking up and finding out all my public land is gone, Mt. stream access is gone, North American Model is destroyed and I have no place to hunt and fish without hiring an outfitter or paying some landowner for the priviledge. I really don't care if or how conservative you are, that's your choice, from my perspective think things in this country have been pretty damn good under the leadership of Democratic Presidents although I'm sure very few on this forum will agree with me.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Vermin Supreme doesn't look like such a bad choice after all...

 

[Oak]

I'm still holding out hope that Vermin Supreme's campaign promise is somehow tied to a plan to reduce feral horses on public lands.

 

[Nemont]

Never been a single issue voter, never, (I thought the single issue voters were the die hard NRA 2nd amendment guys), just can't imagine one day waking up and finding out all my public land is gone, Mt. stream access is gone, North American Model is destroyed and I have no place to hunt and fish without hiring an outfitter or paying some landowner for the priviledge. I really don't care if or how conservative you are, that's your choice, from my perspective think things in this country have been pretty damn good under the leadership of Democratic Presidents although I'm sure very few on this forum will agree with me.

It has been pretty damn good with Republican presidents too, fact is the more I travel around the world the better Americans have it, from my view, regardless of which party is in power. I have never supported transferring/selling public lands and never will.

Still can't stomach Hillary and believe she will turn out to be a long term curse on the Democrat brand for at least a generation due to her being unable to govern and presiding over a nation that will have some of the chickens come home to roost in the next 4 years. Watch and see what happens to the Democrat brand when the final numbers for the 2017 renewals for the ACA plans come out in Oct. If Hillary wins then most likely she will have a full blown crisis on her hands dealing with the fall out of 50% to 80% rates increases on individual health plans. So enjoy the good times because the Democrats are going to get a big can of bad news soon and they are going to be stuck with it.

If they were smart they would leave the Donald swinging in the wind on that one because he would have to show that he is incapable of dealing with 1/5th of the American economy. Then maybe we can get to Medicare for all because that is the only workable solution to ever even attempt to get our arms around the health insurance crisis.

Nemont

 

[jryoung]

It has been pretty damn good with Republican presidents too, fact is the more I travel around the world the better Americans have it, from my view, regardless of which party is in power. I have never supported transferring/selling public lands and never will.

Still can't stomach Hillary and believe she will turn out to be a long term curse on the Democrat brand for at least a generation due to her being unable to govern and presiding over a nation that will have some of the chickens come home to roost in the next 4 years. Watch and see what happens to the Democrat brand when the final numbers for the 2017 renewals for the ACA plans come out in Oct. If Hillary wins then most likely she will have a full blown crisis on her hands dealing with the fall out of 50% to 80% rates increases on individual health plans. So enjoy the good times because the Democrats are going to get a big can of bad news soon and they are going to be stuck with it.

If they were smart they would leave the Donald swinging in the wind on that one because he would have to show that he is incapable of dealing with 1/5th of the American economy. Then maybe we can get to Medicare for all because that is the only workable solution to ever even attempt to get our arms around the health insurance crisis.

Nemont

What's been the year over year increase for the last two decades? Isn't it close to that already, or is the rate going to "hockey stick".

 

[Nemont]

What's been the year over year increase for the last two decades? Isn't it close to that already, or is the rate going to "hockey stick".

Hockey stick in many states with fewer choices. We are down to three carriers in Montana who participate with ACA compliant plans. We are hearing the request is for 50% to 80% over last years increases which averaged almost 30%. So about a combined 90% over two years. I have been in this business for 21 years and have seen many rate increases and this one will be the worst two year total that I have been through.

Some states will fair better but there will a A LOT of bloody numbers coming out. Personally I kept my premium around $650 a month for my kids and me for about 10 years, I shopped it hard and did everything to keep the premium about the same. I now pay $915 a month and that is with two kids on it instead of 3. It will be over $1,300 after Jan. 2017 and that plan is a family total out of pocket of $12,000 on a Bronze plan. So I will be out over $27,000 if we hit our maximum and assuming everything is in network.

I agree that it has been rising years, but this will be exceptional for many people plus that isn't the political argument that will be going on. If Hillary wins she cannot back track on any parts of the ACA and unless the American people hold the House Republicans feet the fire, they won't bring forward any "fixes" nor will there be anyone with the political courage, on either side, to do what is right until the system crashes.

Nemont

 

[RobG]

Then maybe we can get to Medicare for all because that is the only workable solution to ever even attempt to get our arms around the health insurance crisis.

Nemont - Did I read you right and you saying medicare for everyone is the answer?

 

[Nemont]

Nemont - Did I read you right and you saying medicare for everyone is the answer?

Yes

 

[MTGomer]

A pack of camels in a safe doesn't pose a health risk at all. It's exactly the same as a gun sitting in a safe. But that's not what big tobacco was sued over. They were sued over their lobbying practices that hid the effects of tobacco use and using their corporate influence to create a culture of fear over doing something about it in the public sector. That's pretty similar to what certain organizations have done regarding things like having the CDC look at gun violence from a public health perspective.

I'm a gun owner, and not supportive of new gun control measures in general, but I think the gun industry has a pretty soft underbelly they've left exposed on this one.

Again in case you missed it the first time... Using tobacco for its intended and lawful purpose ( that means smoking, chewing) is dangerous.
Using a gun for its intended and lawful purpose is not dangerous.