The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity

[martybegan]

A gun is not a toy. And show me a lawsuit where a kid ate a toy gun or a quarter and the parent's sued someone, and won.

IF they did win it wouldnt be due to the law, it would be due to jury sympathy, nothing more.

 

[Lakhota]

Gun makers and dealers don't deserve immunity. It's that simple - especially if one carefully reads the complete OP.

 

[Clementine]

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

Other manufacturers get held liable when thier products malfunction, which gun owners would be held as well. If someone made a gun that had a propensity of blowing up in your hand after 20 shots, the manufacturer can be sued.

What you want is to hold a manufactuer liable for when their product functions as desgined, which is quite silly.

Exactly. And no manufacturer can control how people will use their product. Lots of people have been killed by fireplace pokers. Haven't seen anyone going after them. And what about the rope manufacturers? How many people have been strangled with rope or hung themselves, yet anyone can walk into a hardware store and buy it. Hell, you can also buy knives everywhere and no one even IDs you. And that is the number one murder weapon.

Of course, the government and criminals fear people with guns because they are a force to be reckoned with in the event of an attack.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Gun makers and dealers don't deserve immunity. It's that simple - especially if one carefully reads the complete OP.

They don't have immunity from product malfunction, dumbass.

Can you sue Chevrolet for some guy hitting you while driving 110 MPH in his Corvette?

 

[Lakhota]

Gun makers and dealers don't deserve immunity. It's that simple - especially if one carefully reads the complete OP.

They don't have immunity from product malfunction, dumbass.

Can you sue Chevrolet for some guy hitting you while driving 110 MPH in his Corvette?

I suspect you didn't read the entire OP link.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Gun makers and dealers don't deserve immunity. It's that simple - especially if one carefully reads the complete OP.

They don't have immunity from product malfunction, dumbass.

Can you sue Chevrolet for some guy hitting you while driving 110 MPH in his Corvette?

I suspect you didn't read the entire OP link.

I suspect he did, and thinks you're a dumbass anyway.

 

[Lakhota]

Gun makers and dealers don't deserve immunity.

 

[bripat9643]

Gun makers and dealers don't deserve immunity.

You don't deserve to live.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Gun makers and dealers don't deserve immunity.

Couldn't deal with my thread, could you?

 

[Lakhota]

Gun makers and dealers don't deserve immunity.

Couldn't deal with my thread, could you?

Apparently you can't deal with mine.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Gun makers and dealers don't deserve immunity.

Couldn't deal with my thread, could you?

Apparently you can't deal with mine.

I dealt with your thread already, go read it.

 

[Lakhota]

Gun makers and dealers don't deserve immunity.

 

[Lakhota]

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":

From the OP. This law needs to be overturned.

 

[OriginalShroom]

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":

From the OP. This law needs to be overturned.

When every person who makes an item that can possibly misused is held liable for how someone else uses it after it is in their control, you may have a point.

Until then, you are simply wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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":

From the OP. This law needs to be overturned.

you already got your ass handed to you over this, why bump it?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

This is America! **** YEAH!



Only you are responsible for your own failures and crimes!

-----------------------
Btw Lakhota, did you know that the Founder's believed so strongly in personal responsibility for your own crime, that they didn't' even allow Family Members of Convicted Traitors to be penalized? That was radical concept back then.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attainder

Do you know anything about our Constitution?

 

[Lakhota]

Like any major public health problem, stemming gun violence will require multiple, overlapping strategies. Let me offer another one, overlooked until now, but potentially a dynamo: Repeal the little-known, but pernicious, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. In other words, reopen the door to lawsuits against gun sellers for wrongful conduct in the design and marketing of their weapons.

Congress should repeal the law that protects the gun industry from lawsuits. - Slate Magazine

It was done on tobacco - it can be done on guns.

 

[Mustang]

Why is there no longer expectation of individual responsibility? Individual accountability?

Blame the gun. Blame the car. Blame the ping pong ball. Blame the Jart. Blame the booze. Blame the bar that served the booze. Blame the friend that let the friend drive the car after drinking the booze.

Blame the enablers and the enabling devices. The individual perpetrator is just an innocent bystander.

How about the individual accountability of certain corporate officers who intentionally market their products in such a way as to increase the likelihood that their products are used dangerously or unlawfully when compared to others in business who behave in a more responsible manner when marketing their products? This question is even more important now that gun manufacturers have immunity? They may very well feel emboldened to push the envelope even further in their advertising and marketing as well as the way they construct their products.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Like any major public health problem, stemming gun violence will require multiple, overlapping strategies. Let me offer another one, overlooked until now, but potentially a dynamo: Repeal the little-known, but pernicious, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. In other words, reopen the door to lawsuits against gun sellers for wrongful conduct in the design and marketing of their weapons.

Congress should repeal the law that protects the gun industry from lawsuits. - Slate Magazine

It was done on tobacco - it can be done on guns.

Seriously, does your abject looniness know no bounds?

Just what the **** do guns have to do with tobacco?

Christ, you libs are insane.

 

[Wicked Jester]

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

Other manufacturers get held liable when thier products malfunction, which gun owners would be held as well. If someone made a gun that had a propensity of blowing up in your hand after 20 shots, the manufacturer can be sued.

What you want is to hold a manufactuer liable for when their product functions as desgined, which is quite silly.

Exactly. And no manufacturer can control how people will use their product. Lots of people have been killed by fireplace pokers. Haven't seen anyone going after them. And what about the rope manufacturers? How many people have been strangled with rope or hung themselves, yet anyone can walk into a hardware store and buy it. Hell, you can also buy knives everywhere and no one even IDs you. And that is the number one murder weapon.

Of course, the government and criminals fear people with guns because they are a force to be reckoned with in the event of an attack.

Lets go after the X-acto Knife manufacturers now.

After all, it never ends with these friggin' lunatics like Lakhota.....They're fuckin' NUTS!