The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

Wow.. just wow.. this from the anti-profiling crowd.

What a fucking hypocrite.

 

[squeeze berry]

Time to tax guns and ammo.

they are already taxed

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Wow.. just wow.. this from the anti-profiling crowd.

What a fucking hypocrite.

yeah, now your 2nd Amendment rights are determined by how you look.

These lefties are unbelievable.

 

[squeeze berry]

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.

because the TV broadcasts are flooded with commercials from the gun manufacturers glorifying violence?

No wait, that's the video games..............

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

because the TV broadcasts are flooded with commercials from the gun manufacturers glorifying violence?

No wait, that's the video games..............

I've never seen a gun commercial outside an add in a magazine.

 

[uscitizen]

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

Isn't Due process a constitutional right?
didn't this law do away with that as far as anyone wronged by the gun industry?

And of course this law caused gun prices to drop like HC and tort reform?

 

[rightwinger]

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

Like when someone gets blind drunk and plows his Chevy into a crowd?

Bars can be held liable for serving drunks

 

[SniperFire]

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

Like when someone gets blind drunk and plows his Chevy into a crowd?

Bars can be held liable for serving drunks

I think we should hold S.C. Johnson liable for the brain damage you have suffered from snorting Drano.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

Isn't Due process a constitutional right?
didn't this law do away with that as far as anyone wronged by the gun industry?

And of course this law caused gun prices to drop like HC and tort reform?

Unless the handgun blew up in someone hand, you don't have a case

 

[syrenn]

one of these fine days the idea of personal responsibility will sink in.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Like when someone gets blind drunk and plows his Chevy into a crowd?

Bars can be held liable for serving drunks

That's also wrong.

 

[syrenn]

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.

because the TV broadcasts are flooded with commercials from the gun manufacturers glorifying violence?

No wait, that's the video games..............

i know.... lets sue them!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

one of these fine days the idea of personal responsibility will sink in.

Yeah, maybe.

 

[squeeze berry]

one of these fine days the idea of personal responsibility will sink in.

Yeah, maybe.

fat chance

with the LWers it's always someone else's fault

 

[bripat9643]

Isn't Due process a constitutional right?
didn't this law do away with that as far as anyone wronged by the gun industry?

And of course this law caused gun prices to drop like HC and tort reform?

The law has always determined who you can sue and why. For instance, it prevents you from suing politicians or government employees for anything they do in their jobs. That's an obvious travesty of justice.

 

[JoeB131]

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?

YOu don't think these guys aren't running scared after Sandy Hook?

 

[JoeB131]

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.

because the TV broadcasts are flooded with commercials from the gun manufacturers glorifying violence?

No wait, that's the video games..............

The Japanese play the same violent videogames we do.

And they had 11 gun murders last year.

Oh, but they don't have guns available to the public, that's the difference.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Wow.. just wow.. this from the anti-profiling crowd.

What a fucking hypocrite.

yeah, now your 2nd Amendment rights are determined by how you look.

These lefties are unbelievable.

There are no "2nd Amendment rights". The Second Amendment is about militias, not guns.

And, yeah, if you come into the store flashing gang signs with an obviously fake ID, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun.

Or if you do, and you shoot someone with it, then the gun seller should be held legally liable.

Works for me.

 

[rightwinger]

Like when someone gets blind drunk and plows his Chevy into a crowd?

Bars can be held liable for serving drunks

That's also wrong.

Cigarette manufacturers paid billions to avoid civil responsibility.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

because the TV broadcasts are flooded with commercials from the gun manufacturers glorifying violence?

No wait, that's the video games..............

The Japanese play the same violent videogames we do.

And they had 11 gun murders last year.

Oh, but they don't have guns available to the public, that's the difference.

Japan is a homogeneous, racist culture.

You should move there