Senate likely to pass law shielding gun manufacturers

[jczeroman]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nat...orld-headlines

WASHINGTON - In a sign of the changing political calculus of gun control, the Senate appears poised to pass a top priority of the National Rifle Association this week, legislation that would shield the gun industry from lawsuits arising from the misuse of their weapons.

Gun manufacturers have pressed for years for such a law, arguing that it is needed to protect them from lawsuits filed by municipalities or individuals that the industry says could bankrupt it. Dozens of such lawsuits are pending.

------------------------------------------

The fact that this is even being considered is disgusting. How dare congress presume to protect one industry from people's legal right to seek suit on injustices. In terms of principle, this is quite possibly one of the worst things conservatives have advocated all year.

[pastry sharp]

Originally posted by jczeroman
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nat...orld-headlines

WASHINGTON - In a sign of the changing political calculus of gun control, the Senate appears poised to pass a top priority of the National Rifle Association this week, legislation that would shield the gun industry from lawsuits arising from the misuse of their weapons.

Gun manufacturers have pressed for years for such a law, arguing that it is needed to protect them from lawsuits filed by municipalities or individuals that the industry says could bankrupt it. Dozens of such lawsuits are pending.

------------------------------------------

The fact that this is even being considered is disgusting. How dare congress presume to protect one industry from people's legal right to seek suit on injustices. In terms of principle, this is quite possibly one of the worst things conservatives have advocated all year.

agreed. the court should decide if a lawsuit is unwarrented.

[Corganist]

Originally posted by jczeroman
The fact that this is even being considered is disgusting. How dare congress presume to protect one industry from people's legal right to seek suit on injustices. In terms of principle, this is quite possibly one of the worst things conservatives have advocated all year.

I really don't have much problem with this. Congress is well within its right to set out limits to what cases the courts can hear. And all in all, there's really no good reason to allow suits against gun manufacturers for crimes committed using their guns. I would presume this law keeps intact the ability of people to sue the gun manufacturers for faulty guns (blow up in people's faces, go off accidentally, safety doesn't work, etc.) so that real injustices can be rectified. I would think that the only purpose of this law is to protect gun manufacturers from the injustice of having to defend lawsuits that stem solely from the actions of third parties and not their own.

My only problem with this is that it only applies to the gun industry (a testament to the strength of their lobby). Other industries with less powerful lobbies could use similar protection (fast food for instance).

[pastry sharp]

Originally posted by Corganist


(fast food for instance).

the fast food industry generates more than enough revinue to have as powerful a lobby as they would ever want.

[jczeroman]

Originally posted by Corganist

Congress is well within its right to set out limits to what cases the courts can hear. ...I would think that the only purpose of this law is to protect gun manufacturers from the injustice of having to defend lawsuits that stem solely from the actions of third parties and not their own.

That seems pretty ridiculous. If a lawsuit is faulty, then the courts shoudl throw it out. If they aren't throwing out crappy lawsuits then the courts are to blame. If lawsuits still keep coming then the people bringing them are to blame. None of the solutiosn to this "problem" need to involve congress restricting people right to file suit, even if the suit is stupid.

[Mayfuck]

Originally posted by jczeroman
In terms of principle, this is quite possibly one of the worst things conservatives have advocated all year.

The NRA has the GOP by the balls. It's suspicious how they got this in right before Congress' August recess, pressuring the Senate to make a quick vote on this. Even the defense apporpriations bill was delayed until Sept.

Originally posted by Corganist
And all in all, there's really no good reason to allow suits against gun manufacturers for crimes committed using their guns. I would presume this law keeps intact the ability of people to sue the gun manufacturers for faulty guns (blow up in people's faces, go off accidentally, safety doesn't work, etc.) so that real injustices can be rectified. I would think that the only purpose of this law is to protect gun manufacturers from the injustice of having to defend lawsuits that stem solely from the actions of third parties and not their own.

It goes beyond malfunctioning guns. Gun manufacturers and retailers exploit their market. There have been instances where background checks and any kind of scrutiny on potential gun customers have been bypassed in order to make a sale. Once a gun is irresponsibly sold to a criminal, the gun retailer and manufacturer is essentially an accomplice should that criminal commit homicide with that gun. The bill could remove any accountability on the gun makers side setting a dangerous precedent.

[Trotskilicious]

I don't see why people are so ready to protect Fast Food and so quick to abandon Big Tobacco.

[Corganist]

Originally posted by jczeroman

That seems pretty ridiculous. If a lawsuit is faulty, then the courts shoudl throw it out. If they aren't throwing out crappy lawsuits then the courts are to blame. If lawsuits still keep coming then the people bringing them are to blame. None of the solutiosn to this "problem" need to involve congress restricting people right to file suit, even if the suit is stupid.

The courts are backlogged enough without having to deal with dismissing cases such as these, which have no legal or logical backing. Even getting to the point where a case gets thrown out by the court takes a huge cost in time and money to prepare and defend. (The vast majority of cases never see a courtroom at all) There's no reason to put businesses or the courts through those costs if there's no reason for it. Congress is well within its power here to say that there's no reason a company should be sued for damages just for selling a product that's intentionally misused by lawbreakers.

Originally posted by Mayfuck

It goes beyond malfunctioning guns. Gun manufacturers and retailers exploit their market. There have been instances where ********** checks and any kind of scrutiny on potential gun customers have been bypassed in order to make a sale. Once a gun is irresponsibly sold to a criminal, the gun retailer and manufacturer is essentially an accomplice should that criminal commit homicide with that gun. The bill could remove any accountability on the gun makers side setting a dangerous precedent.

I'm all for people being able to sue people who sell guns irresponsibly. But my understanding of the bill being considered (which I admit is based solely on my own assumptions about the article) is that it protects the gun manufacturers, the companies who actually make and distribute the guns to dealers. If a gun dealer sells a gun to a felon who commits a crime with it, I would hope they'd still be on the hook for whatever lawsuit they have coming to them. But someone shouldn't be able to sue Colt or Browning just because they manufactured the gun. That'd be like suing Ford when a drunk driver hits you because they built his car.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally posted by jczeroman


That seems pretty ridiculous. If a lawsuit is faulty, then the courts shoudl throw it out.

Colin, your response is practical but not at all pragmatic. We both know that some lawyer will tell a sob story blaming the gun industry for a dad leaving his gun out and bullets accessable when his son shoots some other kid and both parents will sue the gun manufacterer rather than accept personal responsibility. Peopl sue McDonald's because they are fat for crying out loud.

I really don't have a problem with this is a pragmatic sense. They would still be responsible if they create a faulty and malfunctioning product

[Future Boy]

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Peopl sue McDonald's because they are fat for crying out loud.

Wasnt this thrown out of court?

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally posted by Future Boy


Wasnt this thrown out of court?

It still cost the company a shitload of money, time and bad publicity

[spa ced]

Even though I don't like guns personally I don't see a problem with this legislation because it still makes it possible to sue a manufacturer of a gun if the gun is defective or malfunctions causing injury or death to the person handling the gun.

taken from the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms act:

(A) IN GENERAL- The term `qualified civil liability action' means a civil action brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages or injunctive relief resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not *******--

(v) an action for physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended.

[Future Boy]

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
It still cost the company a shitload of money, time and bad publicity

Im sure McDonalds lost a lot of health conscious customers.



The bigger issue is how this was brought to the floor.

[disslunker]

Originally posted by Corganist
I really don't have much problem with this.

This should be your official motto.

[homechicago]

i'm so glad that the nra gets so much congressional time, session after session. considering how much money they funnel into campaigns, they'd better get all the protection in the world (ironic, a gun industry needing "protection")

i'm not at all concerned with gun manufacture being on the brink of bankruptcy. even in bizzarro world, if an american gun company went under, it's not going to upset me. for the few working class people who might lose assembly line jobs (are guns even made in america?) i would be upset.

on a MUCH lesser note, the movie runaway jury shows that gun companies COULD in fact be directly supplying guns to the criminal element of society. powerful lobbies like that are powerful because in most cases they bend the rules to get their way. they aren't wide-eyed innocents. gun shows purposely use loop holes for ********** checks and OH MY it's the nra/gun lobby that made it so.

i wish the "conservative" party were actually conservative, and not a bunch of wimps who do the bidding of a dangerous, morally bankrupt ceo-style fool. i'm tired of congress deciding court matters. and for that matter, nothing good came of the court mingling in decisions regarding the post of the executive branch. over 200 years of tradition undone by one letter - w.

[Fonzie]

Originally posted by jczeroman

WASHINGTON - In a sign of the changing political calculus of gun control, the Senate appears poised to pass a top priority of the National Rifle Association this week, legislation that would shield the gun industry from lawsuits arising from the misuse of their weapons.

Maybe the Senate should pass a law shielding Billy Corgan from lawsuits arising from his fans...

[pastry sharp]

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
It still cost the company a shitload of money, time and bad publicity

it also cost the the prosecution a shitload of time, money, and bad publicity. they came out of that thing looking like total jags.

[Knight0440]

awwww nutz... poor company!!