OL: Do you think firearms manufacturers should be responsible for the criminal misuse of their products?
Bush: I do not believe that manufacturers or distributors of legal and non-defective products should be held liable for the criminal or unlawful misuse of their product by others. If we hold entire industries responsible for the illegal actions of a few, we risk the confidence of Americans in our laws and we diminish our basic constitutional liberties. Unnecessary lawsuits are also an abuse of the legal system. They set a poor precedent for other lawful industries, cost millions of taxpayer dollars in legal fees, and result in job loss and burdens to
interstate and foreign commerce.
My administration strongly supported the passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which would have prevented frivolous litigation against gun manufacturers and protected the thousands of workers employed by gun manufacturers and in related businesses. This legislation struck a good balance, reducing frivolous lawsuits while carefully preserving the right of individuals to have their day in court with civil liability actions. The Senate failed to pass this bill, but I will continue to support this
legislation in the future.
Kerry: In cases where firearms are criminally misused, the blame should be placed on the person perpetrating the crime. However, in the few cases where it is clear that a gun dealer is consistently selling guns to criminals, gun manufacturers should exercise common sense and stop supplying those dealers. For example, 1.2 percent of licensed gun dealers supply 57 percent of the firearms recovered from criminals. In such cases, if a gun manufacturer knows that this dealer is supplying criminals and yet continues to sell guns to the dealer, then it is fair to hold the manufacturer accountable for this behavior, which is endangering public safety.
OL: Are you in favor of the Freedom to Fish Act, a bill that would prevent agencies from closing waters to fishermen unless state or federal fisheries biologists find it to be necessary? Why or why not?
Bush: My administration has not taken a position on that particular bill, but I strongly support continued access for recreational fishers, and my administration will work with this Congress to protect this appropriate access. Recreational fishers support thousands of American jobs and generate millions of dollars that go directly back to protecting and conserving resources at the local level. We must also protect and maintain those resources for future generations.
Kerry: I support many of the concepts in the Freedom to Fish Act, but I think it is too restrictive in some respects. The decision to close parts of the ocean to fishing has economic and recreational implications and should not be limited only to the views of state and federal biologists. Recreational
fishermen and the general public should have a say in these decisions as well.
In general, I do not support closing waters to fishermen unless such closures would lead to overall improvements in the health of the fishery and thus expand long-term opportunities for fishermen to practice their sport. It is clear that some stocks have been over-fished and need help. Closures are one tool that should be available to fishery managers. In my view, however, this tool should be used rarely, since it necessarily shuts out the public for some length of time. Closures also should be limited in size to the minimum area necessary to achieve the fishery management goal. These areas should be constantly monitored to determine if and when fishing access can be restored. The overall goal of closures should be to provide the best long-term experience possible for the fisherman.
We require
all participants in interactive areas to accept the terms of the Bonnier Corporation subscriber agreement. Please
read the agreement
before making comments. When you click on the button above to submit your comments, you are indicating your acceptance of and
are agreeing to adhere to the terms of the subscriber agreement.
RELATED ARTICLES
