Dems, gun control groups unite to repeal gun industry lawsuit protections

The law does not provide any protection to manufacturers or dealers if they violate the law in any way or for any defect in the product. I fail to see (and the proponents of its repeal fail to explain) how this law has prevented anyone from receiving justified compensation.
 
They're not looking for justified compensation as they claim. They're looking to break the financial backs of the firearms manufacturers and dealers, and drive them out of business, but we all know that already.
 
It's about the destruction of the gun makers through the court system. Those who can, legislate. Those who can't, adjudicate. When your ideas fail with the people, use the courts and ram it down their throats.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That was evil, Frank. :D The local laws seem to be going down the wrong throats in many places while SCOTUS sit in their Depends when it comes to the RKBA.
 
Does this mean that someone could sue a manufacturer because of what a third party did with a gun the manufacturer had made?

Well, if we're making smart laws now, I hope they apply the same logic to car manufacturers, the brewery/distillery industry, the pharma industry, power-tool brands...

Just think....
Crash your car? Sue the auto company.
Drill a hole through a mains cable in your drywall? Sue the power-tool company.
Awake from a shockingly disappointing drunken one-night stand? BINGO: double up and sue both the brewery and the condom company.
If you could also implicate a mobile phone in that last scenario you could really retire young.

:D $$$ :D

I don't see what people are complaining about: all makes perfect sense... :rolleyes:
 
Originally Posted by kilimanjaro

...When your ideas fail with the people, use the courts and ram it down their throats.

Like we were able to do with Heller and McDonald?

If you want to term a 5-4 decision that could of gone the opposite way 'ramming it down their throats'. But, OK, fine.

Yes, exactly. The elected officials in Chicago and Washington DC refused to respect the rights of their citizens, so SCOTUS had to ram it down their throats. In the matter under discussion, Congress has protected gun companies under the PLCAA, now the gun grab crowd wants to override that by using activist courts. The power of the court goes both ways, the left has been using the bench for activism for decades.
 
kilimanjaro said:
...The power of the court goes both ways,...
Click to expand...
Yes. Courts decide cases. When the Supreme Court decides a case involving an issue which is the subject of significant political controversy, someone's ox gets gored.

Pond said:
Does this mean that someone could sue a manufacturer because of what a third party did with a gun the manufacturer had made?...
Click to expand...
A manufacturer can be held liable for damages caused by a defective product. What makes a product defective can be a complex issue. It could involve a product which is made in a manner which results in it being unreasonably dangerous for its intended use or a product which is so poorly or improperly designed so as to be unreasonably dangerous for its intended use. But a comprehensive discussion of the fine points of product liability law in the U. S. is well beyond the scope of this board.

Some years ago, for example, Ford paid a lot of money to settle damage claims arising from an alleged design defect in the fuel tank/fuel system of the Pinto. As designed it presented an unreasonable risk of fire in the event of certain types of collisions. It was an unreasonable risk because the risk was foreseeable and the problem could have been corrected relatively easily and cheaply.

A while ago in this thread we discussed a case in which a jury found a gun store liable for selling a gun used in a crime. The facts were unique, and liability appears to have been founded on the gun store's sloppy practices.
 
OK, so it is not so much about Gun Brand "A" sells gun that eventually ends up in the hands of a nutter who does something abhorrent and then victims take action against Gun Brand "A" simply because they'd made it?
 
Pond said:
OK, so it is not so much about Gun Brand "A" sells gun that eventually ends up in the hands of a nutter who does something abhorrent and then victims take action against Gun Brand "A" simply because they'd made it?
Click to expand...
It's not now, but that's what the anti-gun crowd wants to make it. The current law protects firearms manufacturers against frivolous lawsuits, but it provides to safe haven for a manufacturer of a truly defective firearm that causes injury or death due to the defective design or manufacture. And that's appropriate -- no company should be shielded from responsibility for negligence.

What the anti-gunners want is to be able to sue gun manufacturers over the use by individuals of functionally correct (not defective) firearms in the commission of criminal acts. To use the automobile analogy, it would be equivalent to that recent case where the young woman ran down twenty or so pedestrians. I don't remember the specifics, but say she was driving a Ford Explorer. The antis would want to be able to sue Ford, the manufacturer of the "weapon," just because they made the weapon and it was used in an assault -- without having to show that there was anything defective about the design or manufacture of the weapon.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
. . . . The current law protects firearms manufacturers against frivolous lawsuits, but it provides to safe haven for a manufacturer of a truly defective firearm . . . .
Click to expand...
AB, I think you mean "no safe haven," right?
 
What gets me is that in the video of the link I posted originally, they claim that the firearms industry is the ONLY industry exempt from this. Seriously? They can not believe that we are so 'non thinking' as to believe such a blatant lie.
 
turkeestalker said:
They can not believe that we are so 'non thinking' as to believe such a blatant lie.
Click to expand...

That is precisely what "they" believe. It's unfortunate that to a large degree, it's true.
 
Another reason for repeal of the law is to force the manufacture of so-called Smart Guns.

Sue a maker when someone's teenage kid picks up Dad's gun and kills themself, then get a judgement that because the maker should have reasonably known that their product could have been used by someone other than the legal buyer, they are negligent and liable. Or a judge declaring semi-autos to be defective because of slam fires.

Wait for it.

The left has been thinking about how to do this for a long time, it's about more than just costing the industry money in judgements.
 
I really don't understand this. What fault does the manufacturer have here? Barring manufacturer defects or improper manufacturing ie legitimate liability.

What are their argument points in favor of this? I'm really curious. How do they propose to justify this?
 
It was an attempt to use law suits to drive firearms manufacturers out of the business to sell to the public.

Rationale:

1. You are making a dangerous product that can be misused. You know you are doing it. It attracts misuse.

2. You advertise and market in a manner that allows the guns to get into the wrong hands (this has been used successfully against gun stores that have not been doing due diligence during sales).

Both arguments can be used against other products such as alcohol and fast cars, for instance.
 
Both arguments can be used against other products such as alcohol and fast cars, for instance.
Click to expand...

Couldn't that point be used against them? Could it not be argued in court that, because this is aimed at firearms manufacturers and not car/alcohol/cigarette producers who also fit the criteria, this is a prejudicial case motivated not by public safety concerns but a desire to harm a particular industry?
 
In theory, yes, but I would expect something of a twofold response: (1) "this case isn't about cigarettes;" and (2) no other industry has the equivalent of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
 
The last democratic debate that "I" watched, Bernie Sanders said that allowing lawsuits against manufacturers would end gun manufacturing in the United States, surprisingly he stated that he does not support that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top