The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity

[Jroc]

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?

Hows those gun laws in Chicago working out for you?...idiot

 

[SniperFire]

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.

And China has virtually no public riots or protests.

And in Iran, there are virtually no deaths from AIDS as they have no gays, thus no gay ass fucking.

Isn't banning fun?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The Supreme Court has already thrown out that argument.

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.

Producing a valid ID is already a legal requirement for buying a gun. You claimed just looking "shady" should prevent you from acquiring one. However, there's nothing in the law about "flashing gang signs."

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

Works for me.

If you do what, "flash a gang sign?" If the customer meets the legal requirements, then the gun seller is on the hook for nothing. "Flashing gang signs" isn't a criteria for denying you the ability to purchase a gun.

 

[bripat9643]

Bars can be held liable for serving drunks

That's also wrong.

Cigarette manufacturers paid billions to avoid civil responsibility.

How did they avoid responsibility if they paid billions?

Do you understand the meaning of the words you use?

 

[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?

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.

Maybe you missed that part about the customer using the vehichle in an unlawful and reckless manner. If a gun, due to a mechanical defect fires all by itself, or blows up in your face when you fire it, you can most certainly sue the manufacturer of that firearm. What you cannot do is hold the manufacturer liable for the criminal or reckeless actions of another. Only a total dumbass would even condsider it. Now to your other poiht. The GOVERNMENT regulates who buys and sells weapons NOT the designer, manufacturer or seller, so again, how would that be grounds to sue anyone but the government? You're such a rabid anti-gun nut you can't even see or at least admit, how blazingly stupid your arguments are.

 

[rightwinger]

That's also wrong.

Cigarette manufacturers paid billions to avoid civil responsibility.

How did they avoid responsibility if they paid billions?

Do you understand the meaning of the words you use?

Lesser of two evils to avoid billions in lawsuits that would never end

 

[jtpr312]

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.

You're a moron you know that. Why should the manufacturer be held liable for the criminal actions of a seller? You gonna sue Budwieser because a store clerk sells to an underage kid who dies in a drunken crash? You're typical of the moronic liberal mindest. It's NEVER the fault of the one who actually breaks the law, it's everyone elses fault starting with their mommies who didn't hug them enough.

 

[bripat9643]

Cigarette manufacturers paid billions to avoid civil responsibility.

How did they avoid responsibility if they paid billions?

Do you understand the meaning of the words you use?

Lesser of two evils to avoid billions in lawsuits that would never end

"The lesser of two evils" is correct. People who smoked cigarettes knew they were doing something bad for their health. There was never any grounds for a lawsuit, but there is always some corrupt judge who will throw a sacrificial victim to the lawyer hyenas.

 

[Meister]

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

Hmmm, like Ford, GM, and Chrysler? How many deaths have been involved using an auto?
Hmmm, how many liquor companies have been sued because of a drunk driver?


Don't you feel a little silly with your stupid premise, Lakhota? Just a little? If not, you should.

 

[rightwinger]

How did they avoid responsibility if they paid billions?

Do you understand the meaning of the words you use?

Lesser of two evils to avoid billions in lawsuits that would never end

"The lesser of two evils" is correct. People who smoked cigarettes knew they were doing something bad for their health. There was never any grounds for a lawsuit, but there is always some corrupt judge who will throw a sacrificial victim to the lawyer hyenas.

Lot of dirty laundry in the Tabacco industry. What did they know, when did they know it

They never would have survived in court

 

[hazlnut]

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

Time to repeal that shit.

If you build a car that is specifically designed to run over and kill large groups of people, the car has no other practical use, then that car company would be sued for wrongful death.

If you sold a rat poison designed to look and taste like hot dogs, the argument that you are just empowering consumers to keep their congressional rep in line would not hold up in court.

If firework companies supported methods to modify their pyrotechnic thrill items into bombs for killing, then they would be sued.

Time to repeal this shit.

 

[boedicca]

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.

You're a moron you know that. Why should the manufacturer be held liable for the criminal actions of a seller? You gonna sue Budwieser because a store clerk sells to an underage kid who dies in a drunken crash? You're typical of the moronic liberal mindest. It's NEVER the fault of the one who actually breaks the law, it's everyone elses fault starting with their mommies who didn't hug them enough.

Shhhhh...don't give him anymore ideas on how to kill our liberty.

 

[Meister]

Lesser of two evils to avoid billions in lawsuits that would never end

"The lesser of two evils" is correct. People who smoked cigarettes knew they were doing something bad for their health. There was never any grounds for a lawsuit, but there is always some corrupt judge who will throw a sacrificial victim to the lawyer hyenas.

Lot of dirty laundry in the Tabacco industry. What did they know, when did they know it

They never would have survived in court

Humphrey Bogart knew about the dangers of smoking back in the 40's when he called them coffin nails.....an actor. ...go figure. I guess a person didn't have to be a chemist to figure out it was bad for you.
All it takes is a liberal judge....not like there aren't any of them floating around in the system just waiting to legislate a law. Just have to look at John Roberts in the Supreme Court

 

[bripat9643]

Time to repeal that shit.

If you build a car that is specifically designed to run over and kill large groups of people, the car has no other practical use, then that car company would be sued for wrongful death.

If you sold a rat poison designed to look and taste like hot dogs, the argument that you are just empowering consumers to keep their congressional rep in line would not hold up in court.

If firework companies supported methods to modify their pyrotechnic thrill items into bombs for killing, then they would be sued.

Time to repeal this shit.

Your examples are all cases where the true nature of the product was disguised. Those scenarios have nothing to do with guns. They are designed to kill people. No one is deluded or mislead about that when they buy one. Guns would be useless if they were designed to not kill people.

 

[Meister]

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

Time to repeal that shit.

If you build a car that is specifically designed to run over and kill large groups of people, the car has no other practical use, then that car company would be sued for wrongful death.

If you sold a rat poison designed to look and taste like hot dogs, the argument that you are just empowering consumers to keep their congressional rep in line would not hold up in court.

If firework companies supported methods to modify their pyrotechnic thrill items into bombs for killing, then they would be sued.

Time to repeal this shit.

Just goes to show that idiots are born every minute. Hazel was born in one of those minutes.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Maybe you missed that part about the customer using the vehichle in an unlawful and reckless manner. If a gun, due to a mechanical defect fires all by itself, or blows up in your face when you fire it, you can most certainly sue the manufacturer of that firearm. What you cannot do is hold the manufacturer liable for the criminal or reckeless actions of another. Only a total dumbass would even condsider it. Now to your other poiht. The GOVERNMENT regulates who buys and sells weapons NOT the designer, manufacturer or seller, so again, how would that be grounds to sue anyone but the government? You're such a rabid anti-gun nut you can't even see or at least admit, how blazingly stupid your arguments are.

Guy, fact is, -

You put on one side lawyers from the Cerberus Group, the parent company of the company that made the Bushmaster


and on the other side 20 groups of parents who lost children to Lanza's Rampage...

Guess who a jury of 12 people is gonna find for. Come on. Guess. You can do it.

Please don't try to pretend this is about anything other than putting these assholes out of business. A few multi-billion dollar findings against them, they won't be so in love with the bizarre NRA interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[JoeB131]

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

Frankly, I've never met a Japanese who was racist as most White trash Americans are...

and they'd probably have more reason to feel superior to this guy.

 

[bripat9643]

Frankly, I've never met a Japanese who was racist as most White trash Americans are...

and they'd probably have more reason to feel superior to this guy.

You obviously haven't met any Japanese people.

 

[JoeB131]

You're a moron you know that. Why should the manufacturer be held liable for the criminal actions of a seller? You gonna sue Budwieser because a store clerk sells to an underage kid who dies in a drunken crash? You're typical of the moronic liberal mindest. It's NEVER the fault of the one who actually breaks the law, it's everyone elses fault starting with their mommies who didn't hug them enough.

I could care less if Lanza's Mommy hugged him or not.

The fact she gave him access to a Commercialized M-16 was the problem.

You work on the assumption I care about "the law".

I care about justice.

If the Cerberus Group didn't see marketting these weapons as a way to make a quick buck, Lanza never would have had one.

Who do you think a jury is going to find for?

 

[hazlnut]

Time to repeal that shit.

If you build a car that is specifically designed to run over and kill large groups of people, the car has no other practical use, then that car company would be sued for wrongful death.

If you sold a rat poison designed to look and taste like hot dogs, the argument that you are just empowering consumers to keep their congressional rep in line would not hold up in court.

If firework companies supported methods to modify their pyrotechnic thrill items into bombs for killing, then they would be sued.

Time to repeal this shit.

Your examples are all cases where the true nature of the product was disguised. Those scenarios have nothing to do with guns. They are designed to kill people. No one is deluded or mislead about that when they buy one. Guns would be useless if they were designed to not kill people.

I guess, like most gun nutters, you've never hunted a day in your life.

And save the straw man for the dopes.

In my examples, I implied the true nature of the product was advertised as such. I never said the killer car was advertised as anything else but a car to run over people and kill them in masses. No other practical use.

That's how assault weapons are advertised. "Military-Style" "Law Enforcement" Nothing hidden. If you sold Poison Hot Dog as "CIA Style Secret Covert Killer" people would be saying WTF is that? If you sold fireworks specifically designed for aftermarket modifications, as many gun makers do, then you'd be promoting mass murder... as many gun makers do.

Don't bullshit us, we've got you by the logical balls. Your argument is fail all around.