The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity

[martybegan]

Time to tax guns and ammo.

Why dont we tax blog posts as well?

Figure 1 cent per rational post, and $1 per idiotic one.

Lakhota would owe about $50 a day.

 

[Lakhota]

Time to tax guns and ammo.

Why dont we tax blog posts as well?

Figure 1 cent per rational post, and $1 per idiotic one.

Lakhota would owe about $50 a day.

I'd rather be paid by how many times I hit a NaziCon nerve...

 

[Missourian]

Time to tax guns and ammo.

Why dont we tax blog posts as well?

Figure 1 cent per rational post, and $1 per idiotic one.

Lakhota would owe about $50 a day.

I'd rather be paid by how many times I hit a NaziCon nerve...

You'd stave to death.

This idea is dumb for the reasons stated.

Just like sports cars and Everclear...guns do what they do.

It's not the alcohols fault someone drinks themselves into semi consciousness and kills a bus load of nun's...a person does that.

Alcohol can get you drunk...should Budweiser be prosecuted because an individual didn't know when to say when?

Of course not. There product did exactly what everyone knows it can do...if not used responsibly.

Same with guns...

 

[Stephanie]

So Lakhota admits they are only here as a troll

nice going

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Politico]

Great law. They should have more just like it.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Merchant_of_Meh]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

Should GM and other automakers be liable when someone uses their cars for vehicular homicide?

 

[tjvh]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

Do you hold Chevy responsible when a drunk crashes one into someone? Idiot.

 

[GHook93]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

Read the law and the subsequent court orders. Strict liability is for unintended consequences, such as eating a snickers bar that had poison chemicals that killed you down the line.

But guns are made to to kill. Killing is not an unintended consequence. Similar to the immunity that alcohol and tobacco receive!

 

[tjvh]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

Read the law and the subsequent court orders. Strict liability is for unintended consequences, such as eating a snickers bar that had poison chemicals that killed you down the line.

But guns are made to to kill. Killing is not an unintended consequence. Similar to the immunity that alcohol and tobacco receive!

Guns are only made to kill only when someone uses them for killing. In my opinion, my guns were made for target shooting... Something that I enjoy.

 

[martybegan]

Time to tax guns and ammo.

Why dont we tax blog posts as well?

Figure 1 cent per rational post, and $1 per idiotic one.

Lakhota would owe about $50 a day.

I'd rather be paid by how many times I hit a NaziCon nerve...

GODWINS LAW: You automatically lose the argument.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

By Sergio Munoz

As major media outlets report on gun violence prevention strategies in the wake of the Newtown tragedy, they have ignored a controversial law that shields the firearms industry from being held accountable.

In 2005, former President George W. Bush signed into law the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - the "No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association" - which immunized gun makers and dealers from civil lawsuits for the crimes committed with the products they sell, a significant barrier to a comprehensive gun violence prevention strategy. Despite its recent reporting on proposed efforts to prevent another tragedy like the one in Newtown, major newspapers and evening television news have not explained this significant legal immunity, according to a Media Matters search of Nexis.

Faced with an increasing number of successful lawsuits over reckless business practices that funneled guns into the hands of criminals, the 2005 immunity law was a victory for the NRA, which "lobbied lawmakers intensely" to shield gun makers and dealers from personal injury law. As described by Erwin Chemerinsky, a leading constitutional scholar and the Dean of the University of California-Irvine School of Law, by eliminating this route for victims to hold the gun industry accountable in court, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was a complete deviation from basic "principles of products liability":

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is also commonly referred to as the "Gun Protection Act." The law dismissed all current claims against gun manufacturers in both federal and state courts and pre-empted future claims. The law could not be clearer in stating its purpose: "To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm caused solely by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended." There are some narrow exceptions for which liability is allowed, such as actions against transferors of firearms who knew the firearm would be used in drug trafficking or a violent crime by a party directly harmed by that conduct.

It is outrageous that a product that exists for no purpose other than to kill has an exemption from state tort liability. Allowing tort liability would force gun manufacturers to pay some of the costs imposed by their products, increase the prices for assault weapons and maybe even cause some manufacturers to stop making them.​

More: Why Isn't The Media Discussing The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity? | Blog | Media Matters for America

Do you know what unprecedented means? Are you aware that drug makers have been granted immunity for any harm done from the proper use of their products? That they have this immunity even if fraud is involved? That immunity also applies to manufacturers of medical devices? That Government Motors cannot be sued for manufacturing defects from before Obama bailed them out?

 

[Rozman]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

I have seen many post here that are ridiculous....

This one has just moved to the top of that list.

Why would the gun manufacturers be held responsible for anything other then the gun
malfunctioning?.....

 

[Lakhota]

Wow, there sure are some world class dumbasses on this thread.

 

[bayoubill]

Wow, there sure are some world class dumbasses on this thread.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7pVjl4Rrtc]Talking Heads - Once In A Lifetime - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Rozman]

Still don't understand why a gun manufacturer should be held liable for the gun working as designed.

And I'm the dumb one????

 

[jtpr312]

Unprecedented? Guess you support suing GM every time a customer of theirs kills or injures someone, while using their product in an unlawful or reckless manner? Only a scumbag liberal democrat like Bloomberg or morons like him, would even think it's sane to sue a manufacturer because a person uses their product in an unlawful or reckless manner. Guess we need to sue louisville slugger because of the people beaten to death with ball bats huh? We'll sue Shrade because some nuts stab people usuing Shrade Knives next huh? Oh oh, just read an article about someone getting beaten to death with a TV, guess we'll be suing Sanyo now huh?

 

[JoeB131]

Liable for what? What other people do with guns?

How guns are marketted, guns being sold irresponsibly to people who shouldn't have them.

You see, the Gun makers looked at the way big Tobacco got put through the wringers when it was revealed that they were intentionally marketting cigarettes to children. As a result, the Tobacco companies settled for billions of dollars.

The Gunmakers didn't want that to happen, so the NRA got congress to sign this legislative turd into law.

 

[JoeB131]

Unprecedented? Guess you support suing GM every time a customer of theirs kills or injures someone, while using their product in an unlawful or reckless manner? Only a scumbag liberal democrat like Bloomberg or morons like him, would even think it's sane to sue a manufacturer because a person uses their product in an unlawful or reckless manner. Guess we need to sue louisville slugger because of the people beaten to death with ball bats huh? We'll sue Shrade because some nuts stab people usuing Shrade Knives next huh? Oh oh, just read an article about someone getting beaten to death with a TV, guess we'll be suing Sanyo now huh?

Car companies get sued all the time for mechanical defects that cause accidents.

Frankly, if you design a product that is specifically meant to kill people and you don't strictly regulate who you are selling it to, you should be sued.