The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity

[MeBelle]

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

Agree!

The OP is a perfect example.

 

[bripat9643]

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

are knife makers held responsible if someone uses a knife to commit murder?

This law is idiotic and a blatant attempt to bankrupt gun makers. It's an assault on the 2nd amendment.

Only turds like you are fooled.

 

[Dreadnaught1968]

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.

But car companies don't get sued if someone gets drunk, gets behind the wheel, and kills someone. How is that the fault of the car manufacturer?

As to who they are sold to, that's up to gun dealers and background checks.

 

[JoeB131]

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

are knife makers held responsible if someone uses a knife to commit murder?

This law is idiotic and a blatant attempt to bankrupt gun makers. It's an assault on the 2nd amendment.

Only turds like you are fooled.

Um... do try to pay attention, the law immunized the gun manufacturers from lawsuits so they couldn't be sued the way big tobacco was.

Because the last thing they wanted was a big lawsuit against Colt, et al, showing that these companies irresponsibly marketted their weapons to undermine local gun laws.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The tobacco companies weren't sued for marketing tobocco to children, douche nozzle. And that lawsuit was an offense to every conceivable notion of justice. It was simply a blatant attempt by state governments to shake down the tobacco companies for cash.

 

[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.

But car companies don't get sued if someone gets drunk, gets behind the wheel, and kills someone. How is that the fault of the car manufacturer?

As to who they are sold to, that's up to gun dealers and background checks.

I agree.

So let's hold gun dealers responsible and have thorough background checks.

And when a gun store has "Official Colt Dealer" posters in their windows, Colt should be responsible for them performing the background checks and not selling guns to people who look shady.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressive won't be happy until they're the first layer of the mass graves after their leaders take over

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Fuck you. The fact that guns are designed to kill people doesn't mean the one who does the killing gets off the hook. They only kill people when someone intentionally uses them for that purpose. It would be pointless to have guns for self protection if they didn't kill people.

That's a bogus argument, and it always has been. Only scumbags use it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

Hardly unprecedented

When was the last time an alcohol company was sued over a drunk driving accident?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

But car companies don't get sued if someone gets drunk, gets behind the wheel, and kills someone. How is that the fault of the car manufacturer?

As to who they are sold to, that's up to gun dealers and background checks.

I agree.

So let's hold gun dealers responsible and have thorough background checks.

And when a gun store has "Official Colt Dealer" posters in their windows, Colt should be responsible for them performing the background checks and not selling guns to people who look shady.

we already have background checks and gun dealers are already held responsible. What does that have to do with holding gun manufacturers responsible?

 

[bripat9643]

Liable for what? What other people do with guns?

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

and how does the gun dealer determine who should own them and who should not? I assume you are talking about people who pass the background check.

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.

It's only a "turd" from the viewpoint of bootlicking statist turds like you who want to outlaw all guns. Yes, that did thwart one of the means you intended to use for that purpose. Tough shit for you, eh?

 

[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.

Fuck you. The fact that guns are designed to kill people doesn't mean the one who does the killing gets off the hook. They only kill people when someone intentionally uses them for that purpose. It would be pointless to have guns for self protection if they didn't kill people.

That's a bogus argument, and it always has been. Only scumbags use it.

And if you marketted your guns in a high crime area to dealer who didn't do thorough background checks, you kind of deserve to be held financially liable.

That's the kicker. If the families at Sandy Hook took the Cerberus group for a few billion, you'd watch the gun companies clean up their act really fast.

Honestly, I'm really liking this idea. Let's get all the marketting materials from the gun companies. Just lay the whole thing out and let juries sort it out.

 

[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.

and how does the gun dealer determine who should own them and who should not? I assume you are talking about people who pass the background check.

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.

It's only a "turd" from the viewpoint of bootlicking statist turds like you who want to outlaw all guns. Yes, that did thwart one of the means you intended to use for that purpose. Tough shit for you, eh?

Well, until we get it repealled, which will be a lot easier now.

Now that people are paying attention.

 

[bripat9643]

Um... do try to pay attention, the law immunized the gun manufacturers from lawsuits so they couldn't be sued the way big tobacco was.

Because the last thing they wanted was a big lawsuit against Colt, et al, showing that these companies irresponsibly marketted their weapons to undermine local gun laws.

I understand your point perfectly. You're disappointed that lefties can't pull the same sleazy maneuver on gun manufacturers that they pulled on tobacco companies.

Good. I'm all for it. Fuck all those who want to sue gun companies. We know their true agenda. You aren't fooling anyone.

Also, how does marketing a product make a corporation liable for anything? There is no government right to prevent anyone from voting down their absurd laws and regulation.

 

[bripat9643]

It's only a "turd" from the viewpoint of bootlicking statist turds like you who want to outlaw all guns. Yes, that did thwart one of the means you intended to use for that purpose. Tough shit for you, eh?

Well, until we get it repealled, which will be a lot easier now.

Now that people are paying attention.

I doubt it. How are you going to get a repeal past the Republicans in the House?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Fuck you. The fact that guns are designed to kill people doesn't mean the one who does the killing gets off the hook. They only kill people when someone intentionally uses them for that purpose. It would be pointless to have guns for self protection if they didn't kill people.

That's a bogus argument, and it always has been. Only scumbags use it.

And if you marketted your guns in a high crime area to dealer who didn't do thorough background checks, you kind of deserve to be held financially liable.

That's the kicker. If the families at Sandy Hook took the Cerberus group for a few billion, you'd watch the gun companies clean up their act really fast.

Honestly, I'm really liking this idea. Let's get all the marketting materials from the gun companies. Just lay the whole thing out and let juries sort it out.

Clean up what "act," manufacturing guns? You mean they would commit suicide and go out of business? How would this "cleaning up their act" manifest itself?

 

[JoeB131]

Um... do try to pay attention, the law immunized the gun manufacturers from lawsuits so they couldn't be sued the way big tobacco was.

Because the last thing they wanted was a big lawsuit against Colt, et al, showing that these companies irresponsibly marketted their weapons to undermine local gun laws.

I understand your point perfectly. You're disappointed that lefties can pull the same sleazy manuever on gun manufacturers that they pulled on tobacco companies.

Good. I'm all for it. Fuck all those who want to sue gun companies. We know their true agenda. You aren't fooling anyone.

Also, how does marketing a product make a corporation liable for anything? There is no government right to prevent anyone from voting down their absurd laws and regulation.

I think it's an issue of disclosure.

For instance, if a gun company tells a family that a gun will make them safer when the reality is that studies have shown a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the family than a bad guy, they have deceptively marketted the product.

Kind of the way that Joe Camel making cigarettes look "Cool" was deceptive.

And just like cigarette machines made cigarettes available to children, gun stores in a place like Cicero a block from the border with Chicago was meant to get around Chicago's strict gun laws.

Again, if everything is on the up and up, I'm sure a court hearing will exonerate the gun industry as honest businessmen...

Because, hey, these guys should totally be able to get guns like the Bushmaster. They could even use them in their advertising...

"Makes the Movie-going experience better!"

"Fun for the Kids!"

"They're be a hot time, in the old town, tonight."

 

[JoeB131]

Fuck you. The fact that guns are designed to kill people doesn't mean the one who does the killing gets off the hook. They only kill people when someone intentionally uses them for that purpose. It would be pointless to have guns for self protection if they didn't kill people.

That's a bogus argument, and it always has been. Only scumbags use it.

And if you marketted your guns in a high crime area to dealer who didn't do thorough background checks, you kind of deserve to be held financially liable.

That's the kicker. If the families at Sandy Hook took the Cerberus group for a few billion, you'd watch the gun companies clean up their act really fast.

Honestly, I'm really liking this idea. Let's get all the marketting materials from the gun companies. Just lay the whole thing out and let juries sort it out.

Clean up what "act," manufacturing guns? You mean they would commit suicide and go out of business? How would this "cleaning up their act" manifest itself?

That would work for me.

You work on the assumption that I care if you can get a gun or not. I really don't.

But I will bet, the first time a gunmaker has to pay out a settlement to a family whose kid was shot in a school, they'll seriously look at how they market and manufacture them.

 

[bripat9643]

Um... do try to pay attention, the law immunized the gun manufacturers from lawsuits so they couldn't be sued the way big tobacco was.

Because the last thing they wanted was a big lawsuit against Colt, et al, showing that these companies irresponsibly marketted their weapons to undermine local gun laws.

I understand your point perfectly. You're disappointed that lefties can pull the same sleazy manuever on gun manufacturers that they pulled on tobacco companies.

Good. I'm all for it. Fuck all those who want to sue gun companies. We know their true agenda. You aren't fooling anyone.

Also, how does marketing a product make a corporation liable for anything? There is no government right to prevent anyone from voting down their absurd laws and regulation.

I think it's an issue of disclosure.

For instance, if a gun company tells a family that a gun will make them safer when the reality is that studies have shown a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the family than a bad guy, they have deceptively marketted the product.

I haven't noticed gun ads making any claims about guns making families safer. The claim about guns in the home being "43 times more likely to kill a member of the family than a bad guy" is also bullshit. If gun manufacturers can be sued for bogus claims, then so should gun control groups.

Kind of the way that Joe Camel making cigarettes look "Cool" was deceptive.

tobacco companies weren't sued because of Joe Camel ads. Those were regulated out of existence long before the suit against that tobacco companies.

And just like cigarette machines made cigarettes available to children, gun stores in a place like Cicero a block from the border with Chicago was meant to get around Chicago's strict gun laws.

That may be entirely true, but it's entirely legal, and it's never been the basis for any lawsuit.

Again, if everything is on the up and up, I'm sure a court hearing will exonerate the gun industry as honest businessmen...

What you're sure of is that anti gun groups will file endless lawsuit and litigate the gun companies into bankruptcy. You're a scumbag and you know it.

 

[bripat9643]

And if you marketted your guns in a high crime area to dealer who didn't do thorough background checks, you kind of deserve to be held financially liable.

That's the kicker. If the families at Sandy Hook took the Cerberus group for a few billion, you'd watch the gun companies clean up their act really fast.

Honestly, I'm really liking this idea. Let's get all the marketting materials from the gun companies. Just lay the whole thing out and let juries sort it out.

Clean up what "act," manufacturing guns? You mean they would commit suicide and go out of business? How would this "cleaning up their act" manifest itself?

That would work for me.

You work on the assumption that I care if you can get a gun or not. I really don't.

Wrong. I don't work on that assumption. I fully realize that your a bootlicking totalitarian asshole who would like to disarm the American public. The question is, why should anyone fall for your bullshit?

But I will bet, the first time a gunmaker has to pay out a settlement to a family whose kid was shot in a school, they'll seriously look at how they market and manufacture them.

Yeah, there are always ways the government can drive corporations out of business, but how would that prove that suing gun manufacturers is a just policy and not a violation of the 2nd amendment?

Quit hiding behind this charade of wanting gun manufacturers to be "responsible." we all now that's a sleazy lie.