You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Dems, gun control groups unite to repeal gun industry lawsuit protections
- Thread starter turkeestalker
- Start date
kilimanjaro
New member
It will become fair game if Congress changes hands this November.
Elections have consequences.
Elections have consequences.
For a long time, the Republican party machine took gun owners votes as a given, because, basically (and realistically) we had "no other place to go".
It is interesting to see this time, as many gunowners are finally waking up and demanding SOMETHING FOR THEIR VOTES.
I hear the petition for open carry at the Rep convention is up to 35,000.
Weather or not this is actually a good idea is open for discussion, but it is interesting that we have people this cycle who clearly are not willing to be taken for granted by the "establishment" system. I guess we'll see how that plays out. I have grave reservations about the upcoming conventions.
As to the sue the makers mantra;
It is a tremendous case of lying when their talking heads make claims about how lax gun industry regulations are. What other manufactured product is registered with the government when it is made, and sold (originally) ONLY through Federally licensed dealers in accordance with various state and Federal laws??
The people pushing the repeal of the protection laws are so focused they either cannot, or will not see that IF they get the legal principle that they seem to want, (the maker & seller are responsible for 3rd party abuse) if they get this established in law, through court decisions, it will NOT be applied just to firearms.
Even the Supreme Court might have difficulty putting that genie back in the bottle.
It is interesting to see this time, as many gunowners are finally waking up and demanding SOMETHING FOR THEIR VOTES.
I hear the petition for open carry at the Rep convention is up to 35,000.
Weather or not this is actually a good idea is open for discussion, but it is interesting that we have people this cycle who clearly are not willing to be taken for granted by the "establishment" system. I guess we'll see how that plays out. I have grave reservations about the upcoming conventions.
As to the sue the makers mantra;
It is a tremendous case of lying when their talking heads make claims about how lax gun industry regulations are. What other manufactured product is registered with the government when it is made, and sold (originally) ONLY through Federally licensed dealers in accordance with various state and Federal laws??
The people pushing the repeal of the protection laws are so focused they either cannot, or will not see that IF they get the legal principle that they seem to want, (the maker & seller are responsible for 3rd party abuse) if they get this established in law, through court decisions, it will NOT be applied just to firearms.
Even the Supreme Court might have difficulty putting that genie back in the bottle.
44 AMP said:The people pushing the repeal of the protection laws are so focused they either cannot, or will not see that IF they get the legal principle that they seem to want, (the maker & seller are responsible for 3rd party abuse) if they get this established in law, through court decisions, it will NOT be applied just to firearms.
Even the Supreme Court might have difficulty putting that genie back in the bottle.
Although the push may be more towards guns now, it would appear some people oppose the concept of personal responsibility, so it may well suit them to cover other things as well. If the U.S. Supreme Court decides to uphold the repeal of protection laws against guns, they will probably specifically say something to the effect that it applies only to guns, unless they say otherwise.
If the U.S. Supreme Court decides to uphold the repeal of protection laws against guns, they will probably specifically say something to the effect that it applies only to guns, unless they say otherwise.
I'm sure that if they did, they would include language like that. And that, in itself would be a problem as well. I think the principles of equal treatment /equal protection under the law would challenge such a decision.
The big hurdle is the idea held by too many, that guns are somehow different from other inanimate objects.
To go to extremes for illustration, if you bought a Stanley Claw Hammer, (no background check, etc.) and some punk stole it, then used it to bash in the head of a little old lady to get her purse, do you know ANYONE who would think it was right and proper for the family of the poor lady to sue Stanley???
I don't. Would not allowing gunmakers to be sued be a matter of not treating them equally under the law??
kilimanjaro
New member
If SCOTUS were to uphold such a law, there would be no challenge to that.
It would take an election cycle returning control of the Senate and the White House to a gun-friendly ideology, and then one or more new Justices on the court, before even presenting a challenge to SCOTUS to re-visit.
By that time, the industry would have been bankrupted, never to return in it's existing form.
Again, elections have consequences.
It would take an election cycle returning control of the Senate and the White House to a gun-friendly ideology, and then one or more new Justices on the court, before even presenting a challenge to SCOTUS to re-visit.
By that time, the industry would have been bankrupted, never to return in it's existing form.
Again, elections have consequences.
SailingOnBy said: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?
I have read two kinds of justifications or arguments for repeal of the PLCAA.
The first is incorrect factually. It posits that the PLCAA limits a cause of action otherwise available at common law to victims of firearms injury. On the contrary, the PLCAA sets in code what was already found in common law - the intervening criminal act of a third party severs the potential liability of a seller or manufacturer. A victim can still pursue the negligent or malicious "wrongdoer" in court, but that "wrongdoer" is the one who actually committed the harm.
The second is frank. It holds that litigation was used to shift public policy on tobacco, bringing an enormous industry under control and very effectively discouraging smoking. It seeks to use litigation against firearms manufacture and distribution to shape and shift public policy. It holds, for example, that Bushmaster was "negligent" in selling an AR pattern rifle to civilians. I used quotation marks around "negligent", because the kind of negligence that leads to a verdict against Bushmaster involves a 1) duty to the injured and 2) a breach of that duty by Bushmaster. Since Bushmaster had no duty not to sell rifles as it did, there is no negligence.
When you see this second type of argument, "negligence" is used in a loose and dramatic way rather than a way that conveys a coherent idea about legal negligence. That doesn't mean that it lacks power as an argument, only that it is essentially an argument about public policy, not the law of torts.
Pond James Pond
New member
By that time, the industry would have been bankrupted, never to return in it's existing form.
Or it would shift to military or even move to another country/continent.
You're right, though. Not back to it's current form.
kilimanjaro
New member
The military market is puny compared to the US civilian marketplace. A couple of plants could produce the military needs without effort.
Where is a manufacturer going to go to overseas? Mexico? China? India?
Do you think the people that engineer the demise of the industry here will allow it to set up shop overseas and import their guns?
Where is a manufacturer going to go to overseas? Mexico? China? India?
Do you think the people that engineer the demise of the industry here will allow it to set up shop overseas and import their guns?
Pond James Pond
New member
No I mean that there is an arms industry in Europe for example and Brazil.
If the environment were no longer conducive to doing business in the US anymore, it seems logical that they would look else where first, before throwing in the towel.
True that the markets elsewhere don't compare, but if it's a choice between that and financial oblivion....
If the environment were no longer conducive to doing business in the US anymore, it seems logical that they would look else where first, before throwing in the towel.
True that the markets elsewhere don't compare, but if it's a choice between that and financial oblivion....
if a gun manf, supplier, wholesaler, retail dealer, even there emplyee is to be held accountable for anything a consumer does with there product. then we can sue any company, for any reason.
even the poor sap in the kiosk selling junk can be sued for our misuse of said product.
sad dead man cliff here.
.
even the poor sap in the kiosk selling junk can be sued for our misuse of said product.
sad dead man cliff here.
.