Got this one off the 2nd amendment message board. Great stuff!
FABLE: Firearms manufacturers should be financially liable for the actions of criminals who misuse guns.
During the 1980s, gun control advocates began promoting lawsuits seeking to hold firearm manufacturers and sellers strictly liable for injuries resulting from the misuse, by third parties, of firearms that operate properly and have no defect in design or manufacturing. The purpose of such lawsuits: to achieve huge monetary judgments against firearms manufacturers and sellers, to drive them out of business or force them to raise firearm prices beyond the budgets of most Americans.
The concept of using lawsuits to destroy a lawful and constitutionally-protected activity violates long-standing American principles. In New York Times v. Sullivan (376 U.S. 254, 256, 1964), the Supreme Court held that civil law suits cannot make it impossible for a free press to survive. That decision was based on the intent of the Framers, with respect to the
First Amendment, that citizens should not be punished or suffer financially for criticizing public officials.
In his concurring opinion, Justice Hugo Black applied the principle to the right to keep and bear arms as well. Quoting "America's Blackstone," St. George Tucker, Justice Black noted, "Whenever . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
Plaintiffs may sue a manufacturer or seller of a product for compensation for injuries
sustained because a product is defective, the defect poses an unreasonable danger to the user, and the defect caused the injury. A product may be considered "defective" if it does not operate as a reasonable manufacturer would design and make it, as a reasonable
consumer would expect, or as other products of its type.
However, manufacturers cannot be held liable for injuries that occur merely because a
properly operating product is criminally or negligently misused. Courts have uniformly held that some defect must exist in the product at the time it was sold, and that the plaintiff's injury must have been the result of that defect:
"The three necessary elements needed to properly state a good cause of action in strict liability are (1) that the injury resulted from a defective condition of the product, (2) that the defective condition made the product unreasonably dangerous, and (3) that the defective condition existed at the time the manufactured product left the manufacturer's control." ? Riordan v. International Armament Corp., 477 N.E.2d 1293, 1298, (Ill. App. Ct.,1985)
Undaunted, anti-gun litigators and activists have tried to advance various "defectless"
product liability theories alleging that firearm manufacturers and sellers are liable for injuries resulting from the misuse of firearms that are not defective. Under such theories, it is irrelevant that an injury resulted because a firearm was criminally or negligently misused.
Firearms are alleged to be "inherently defective" because they function as intended.
Manufacturers are alleged to be liable because they should have known a criminal could misuse a gun, and firearms are alleged to be 'socially unacceptable' products whose risk to the public outweighs their social utility.
Courts have correctly rejected these theories, noting that firearms are not defective if they perform as intended; that the purpose of firearms is understood by reasonable people; that the manufacture, sale and ownership of firearms is lawful and attempts to outlaw firearms have been rejected by legislatures;1 and that misuse of a firearm is an intervening factor when assessing blame for firearm-related injuries. The following court decision excerpts illustrate:
"t is for the Legislature to decide whether manufacture, sale and possession of firearms is [sic] legal. To date, manufacture, sale and ownership of [firearms] have been legally permitted." ? Forni v. Ferguson, et al, 648 N.Y.S.2d 73, 73-74 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Such lawsuits clearly are "an obvious attempt ? unwise and unwarranted ? to ban or restrict
handguns through courts and juries, despite the repeated refusals of state legislatures and Congress to pass strong, comprehensive gun-control measures." ? Patterson v. Rohm
Gessellschaft, 608 F. Supp. 1206, 1211 (N.D. Tex. 1985)
"One should never point a gun at another, thinking it is unloaded. And one should never
compound the felony by pulling the trigger. When these cardinal rules are violated, the
victim has an airtight negligent suit against the shooter. He has no case against the gun
maker." ? Eichstedt v. Lakefield Arms, No. 91-C-832, slip op. at 14 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 22,
1994)
"Only a defective person would fail to realize the obvious dangers" in gripping a handgun, pointing it at another person and squeezing the trigger. ? Taylor v. Gerry's Ridgewood, 490 N.E.2d 987, 991 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986)
"[A] majority of the legislators thinks such a ban would be undesirable as a matter of public policy. The inference that the court should draw from this is clear: the legislature does not think handgun manufacturers act unreasonably (are negligent per se) when they market their product to the general public." ? Richman v. Charter Arms Corp., No 82-1314 (E.D. La., 1983)
"It is not for this court to determine the social utility of products used by the American people." ? Riordan v. International Armament Corp.,477 N.E.2d 1293, 1298, (Ill. App. Ct.,1985)
In a 1998 case, an Oakland, California, family brought suit against Beretta U.S.A. Corp., claiming that the accidental shooting death of their son by a friend was the result of the absence of "personalized" or "smart gun" technology which could prevent a gun from being fired by an unauthorized person. The case also incorrectly claimed that the firearm did not have a loaded chamber indicator and included inadequate safety warnings in the operators manual. Beretta showed in its defense that the gun did have a loaded chamber indicator and that the gun owner had failed to follow the safety procedures outlined in the manual provided. By a vote of 9 to 3, the jury agreed with Beretta, finding that the gun had no
defect and that included safety warnings were adequate. It found that the sole significant
cause of the accident was the negligence of the gun owner and his son. ? Dix v. Beretta
U.S.A., Corp. #750681-9 (California Superior Court, Alameda County.)
With "defectless" theories universally rejected by the courts, one anti-gun litigator recently conceived of an even more preposterous twist of tort law: "collective liability." Under this concept, lawsuits would be waged against all firearm manufacturers as a group, alleging
that when a given firearm is misused, each manufacturer should pay a percentage of the
total damages awarded a plaintiff, commensurate with its share of the firearms market.
In 1998, several cities such as Chicago and New Orleans sued gun makers as a group for
past sales that comply with existing gun laws. These cities are using the courts to sidestep the democratic process in order to enact de facto gun bans.
=======
My DM 0,04:
Suing gun manufacturers is kind of like suing alcohol distilleries for all the damage done by drunk driving. Not alcohol's fault, but the negligence of the drinker.
------------------
Exodus 22:2 -- Biblical precedent for home defense.
FABLE: Firearms manufacturers should be financially liable for the actions of criminals who misuse guns.
During the 1980s, gun control advocates began promoting lawsuits seeking to hold firearm manufacturers and sellers strictly liable for injuries resulting from the misuse, by third parties, of firearms that operate properly and have no defect in design or manufacturing. The purpose of such lawsuits: to achieve huge monetary judgments against firearms manufacturers and sellers, to drive them out of business or force them to raise firearm prices beyond the budgets of most Americans.
The concept of using lawsuits to destroy a lawful and constitutionally-protected activity violates long-standing American principles. In New York Times v. Sullivan (376 U.S. 254, 256, 1964), the Supreme Court held that civil law suits cannot make it impossible for a free press to survive. That decision was based on the intent of the Framers, with respect to the
First Amendment, that citizens should not be punished or suffer financially for criticizing public officials.
In his concurring opinion, Justice Hugo Black applied the principle to the right to keep and bear arms as well. Quoting "America's Blackstone," St. George Tucker, Justice Black noted, "Whenever . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
Plaintiffs may sue a manufacturer or seller of a product for compensation for injuries
sustained because a product is defective, the defect poses an unreasonable danger to the user, and the defect caused the injury. A product may be considered "defective" if it does not operate as a reasonable manufacturer would design and make it, as a reasonable
consumer would expect, or as other products of its type.
However, manufacturers cannot be held liable for injuries that occur merely because a
properly operating product is criminally or negligently misused. Courts have uniformly held that some defect must exist in the product at the time it was sold, and that the plaintiff's injury must have been the result of that defect:
"The three necessary elements needed to properly state a good cause of action in strict liability are (1) that the injury resulted from a defective condition of the product, (2) that the defective condition made the product unreasonably dangerous, and (3) that the defective condition existed at the time the manufactured product left the manufacturer's control." ? Riordan v. International Armament Corp., 477 N.E.2d 1293, 1298, (Ill. App. Ct.,1985)
Undaunted, anti-gun litigators and activists have tried to advance various "defectless"
product liability theories alleging that firearm manufacturers and sellers are liable for injuries resulting from the misuse of firearms that are not defective. Under such theories, it is irrelevant that an injury resulted because a firearm was criminally or negligently misused.
Firearms are alleged to be "inherently defective" because they function as intended.
Manufacturers are alleged to be liable because they should have known a criminal could misuse a gun, and firearms are alleged to be 'socially unacceptable' products whose risk to the public outweighs their social utility.
Courts have correctly rejected these theories, noting that firearms are not defective if they perform as intended; that the purpose of firearms is understood by reasonable people; that the manufacture, sale and ownership of firearms is lawful and attempts to outlaw firearms have been rejected by legislatures;1 and that misuse of a firearm is an intervening factor when assessing blame for firearm-related injuries. The following court decision excerpts illustrate:
"t is for the Legislature to decide whether manufacture, sale and possession of firearms is [sic] legal. To date, manufacture, sale and ownership of [firearms] have been legally permitted." ? Forni v. Ferguson, et al, 648 N.Y.S.2d 73, 73-74 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Such lawsuits clearly are "an obvious attempt ? unwise and unwarranted ? to ban or restrict
handguns through courts and juries, despite the repeated refusals of state legislatures and Congress to pass strong, comprehensive gun-control measures." ? Patterson v. Rohm
Gessellschaft, 608 F. Supp. 1206, 1211 (N.D. Tex. 1985)
"One should never point a gun at another, thinking it is unloaded. And one should never
compound the felony by pulling the trigger. When these cardinal rules are violated, the
victim has an airtight negligent suit against the shooter. He has no case against the gun
maker." ? Eichstedt v. Lakefield Arms, No. 91-C-832, slip op. at 14 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 22,
1994)
"Only a defective person would fail to realize the obvious dangers" in gripping a handgun, pointing it at another person and squeezing the trigger. ? Taylor v. Gerry's Ridgewood, 490 N.E.2d 987, 991 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986)
"[A] majority of the legislators thinks such a ban would be undesirable as a matter of public policy. The inference that the court should draw from this is clear: the legislature does not think handgun manufacturers act unreasonably (are negligent per se) when they market their product to the general public." ? Richman v. Charter Arms Corp., No 82-1314 (E.D. La., 1983)
"It is not for this court to determine the social utility of products used by the American people." ? Riordan v. International Armament Corp.,477 N.E.2d 1293, 1298, (Ill. App. Ct.,1985)
In a 1998 case, an Oakland, California, family brought suit against Beretta U.S.A. Corp., claiming that the accidental shooting death of their son by a friend was the result of the absence of "personalized" or "smart gun" technology which could prevent a gun from being fired by an unauthorized person. The case also incorrectly claimed that the firearm did not have a loaded chamber indicator and included inadequate safety warnings in the operators manual. Beretta showed in its defense that the gun did have a loaded chamber indicator and that the gun owner had failed to follow the safety procedures outlined in the manual provided. By a vote of 9 to 3, the jury agreed with Beretta, finding that the gun had no
defect and that included safety warnings were adequate. It found that the sole significant
cause of the accident was the negligence of the gun owner and his son. ? Dix v. Beretta
U.S.A., Corp. #750681-9 (California Superior Court, Alameda County.)
With "defectless" theories universally rejected by the courts, one anti-gun litigator recently conceived of an even more preposterous twist of tort law: "collective liability." Under this concept, lawsuits would be waged against all firearm manufacturers as a group, alleging
that when a given firearm is misused, each manufacturer should pay a percentage of the
total damages awarded a plaintiff, commensurate with its share of the firearms market.
In 1998, several cities such as Chicago and New Orleans sued gun makers as a group for
past sales that comply with existing gun laws. These cities are using the courts to sidestep the democratic process in order to enact de facto gun bans.
=======
My DM 0,04:
Suing gun manufacturers is kind of like suing alcohol distilleries for all the damage done by drunk driving. Not alcohol's fault, but the negligence of the drinker.
------------------
Exodus 22:2 -- Biblical precedent for home defense.