Ghost of BiB Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Can't sue gun manufacturers. Guess the anti-gun lobby will have to try something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Amazingly, crime has dropped yet again. I'm not sure how this is possible now that "assault weapons" are legal again. Bite me, Feinstein and Pelosi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Can't sue gun manufacturers. Guess the anti-gun lobby will have to try something else. 481277[/snapback] I don't have anything against the 2nd Ammendment - in fact, I'm quite for it, but I'd be less inclined to say the "good guys won." IMHO, it's more a case of "common sense prevails." I never understood how that ever went anywhere to begin with. Isn't it a bit like suing IBM because (God forbid) your kid meets up with a pedophile he/she met online? Or suing GM because a drunk driving an Oldsmobile hit you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Guess the anti-gun lobby will have to try something else. 481277[/snapback] They tried their hardest to kill it with amendments. It is nice to see it finally pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted October 20, 2005 Author Share Posted October 20, 2005 I don't have anything against the 2nd Ammendment - in fact, I'm quite for it, but I'd be less inclined to say the "good guys won." IMHO, it's more a case of "common sense prevails." I never understood how that ever went anywhere to begin with. Isn't it a bit like suing IBM because (God forbid) your kid meets up with a pedophile he/she met online? Or suing GM because a drunk driving an Oldsmobile hit you? 481303[/snapback] Not a law person, but as a layman it seems like the tobacco suits let the cat out of the bag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Not a law person, but as a layman it seems like the tobacco suits let the cat out of the bag. 481333[/snapback] To some degree, but there is a difference with the tobacco suits. They claim that the tobacco companies lied to people about the risks of smoking. The gun manufacturers are not lying about the risks of using their products. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 I have no problems with the second amendment but at the same time, I don't see why the constitutional right to have a gun includes a right to be protected against having to answer for having negligently and carelessly used, made or sold a gun. Maybe if I donated enough money to the right congressmen and senators I could get a law passed making me immune from the consequences of my own negligence. I suppose the fact that this is a federal law overriding the right of the states to determine their own tort law and the jurisdiction of their courts makes no difference. Well, I have always said that the question isn't states rights but "whose ox is being gored" so this is no surprise. Lets just remember it the next time you guys on the right are up on the soap box complaining about how broadly the commerce clause is being used to allow the feds to trample the states. And don't toss the 2nd A. up at me, this is about getting sued for negligence, not the right to have a gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 And don't toss the 2nd A. up at me, this is about getting sued for negligence, not the right to have a gun. 481343[/snapback] It is also about not getting sued for the negligence of the user of the product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 To some degree, but there is a difference with the tobacco suits. They claim that the tobacco companies lied to people about the risks of smoking. The gun manufacturers are not lying about the risks of using their products. 481336[/snapback] That difference does not effect the question of whether Congress can override state law when it comes to what is and is not an actionable tort in that state. What is the basis for federal legislation on this issue? Commerce Clause? The Second A.? No one's right to have a firearm is being effected here so I don't see the Second being implicated. The Commerce Clause has always been interpreted very, very broadly but that fact has been a major bugaboo with the right for a long time. How would their attempts to roll back the broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause in other cases be squared with the enthusiastic use of it here? I know how I would explain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 It is also about not getting sued for the negligence of the user of the product. 481352[/snapback] That is a perfectly reasonable concern but why is it a federal concern? Tort liability is a matter of state law. Even when you sue in federal court, that court will choose the state law to use in deciding the case when it comes to torts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted October 20, 2005 Author Share Posted October 20, 2005 I have no problems with the second amendment but at the same time, I don't see why the constitutional right to have a gun includes a right to be protected against having to answer for having negligently and carelessly used, made or sold a gun. Maybe if I donated enough money to the right congressmen and senators I could get a law passed making me immune from the consequences of my own negligence. I suppose the fact that this is a federal law overriding the right of the states to determine their own tort law and the jurisdiction of their courts makes no difference. Well, I have always said that the question isn't states rights but "whose ox is being gored" so this is no surprise. Lets just remember it the next time you guys on the right are up on the soap box complaining about how broadly the commerce clause is being used to allow the feds to trample the states. And don't toss the 2nd A. up at me, this is about getting sued for negligence, not the right to have a gun. 481343[/snapback] This was, is and has been an end around at the 2A. The intent was to make liability so expensive that gun manufacturers would just pull out and shut down. If a weapon is defective, say a bad safety catch that's one thing - but suing a company that makes weapons because someone gets hurt with one is ludicrous. Where is the negligence? Were this to fly, how unrealistic is it to see, as was mentioned, automobile manufacturers being sued because someone was injured or killed by using a non-defective product that has potentially dangerous characteristics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 .... as was mentioned, automobile manufacturers being sued because someone was injured or killed by using a non-defective product that has potentially dangerous characteristics? 481361[/snapback] And are telephone poles that far behind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 And are telephone poles that far behind? 481370[/snapback] I can hear it already: "Well if they wouldn't have made them out of wood - perhaps a more forgiving material instead - then Bobby wouldn't have died when he struck it going 80 mph. Damn them, damn them all to hellllll!" Sorry, have to work in a Heston/Apes movie reference in every thread regarding gun control Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 This was, is and has been an end around at the 2A. The intent was to make liability so expensive that gun manufacturers would just pull out and shut down. If a weapon is defective, say a bad safety catch that's one thing - but suing a company that makes weapons because someone gets hurt with one is ludicrous. Where is the negligence? Were this to fly, how unrealistic is it to see, as was mentioned, automobile manufacturers being sued because someone was injured or killed by using a non-defective product that has potentially dangerous characteristics? 481361[/snapback] This is already covered in existing law bib, its called the "inherently dangerous" rule. Some products, by their very nature, are dangerous. A gun that won't kill would have no utility at all. The law recognizes that fact but there are some questions that can come up with regard to that issue that are not easy calls. Those close calls go to the jury. You often have to prove the "inherently dangerous" rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 I can hear it already: "Well if they wouldn't have made them out of wood - perhaps a more forgiving material instead - then Bobby wouldn't have died when he struck it going 80 mph. Damn them, damn them all to hellllll!" Sorry, have to work in a Heston/Apes movie reference in every thread regarding gun control 481386[/snapback] What if the telephone pole is placed 2 inches off the side of the road and the plans for the road dictated that they be 10 feet off the side but the contractor just screwed up? "Forseeability" is a big thing in the law. You can't be excused your own negligence totally due to the negligence of the another if their negligence was reasonably forseeable. Most states would throw both yours and the other guy's negligence in front of the jury and let them sort it out as to whether it was 10%, 20%, 30% etc, etc your fault or his. The cash verdit would then be apportioned based on that percentage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 This was, is and has been an end around at the 2A. The intent was to make liability so expensive that gun manufacturers would just pull out and shut down. If a weapon is defective, say a bad safety catch that's one thing - but suing a company that makes weapons because someone gets hurt with one is ludicrous. Where is the negligence? Were this to fly, how unrealistic is it to see, as was mentioned, automobile manufacturers being sued because someone was injured or killed by using a non-defective product that has potentially dangerous characteristics? 481361[/snapback] Does this law protect them against suits based on a defective product? If the safety catch is broken, are they immune? Are the damages limited? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 This is already covered in existing law bib, its called the "inherently dangerous" rule. Some products, by their very nature, are dangerous. A gun that won't kill would have no utility at all. The law recognizes that fact but there are some questions that can come up with regard to that issue that are not easy calls. Those close calls go to the jury. You often have to prove the "inherently dangerous" rule. 481402[/snapback] There was an old "Law & Order" episode based on precisely this. Some gomer modifys a semi-auto gun to fire full auto and machine-guns a bunch of people. Prosecution decides to go after the gun manufacturer on the grounds that the gun was "used as designed", in that the modification to full auto leveraged a design characteristic that the company could have easily fixed but didn't, thereby creating an "inherently dangerous" product. The ultimate resolution was the judge throwing out the case and scolding pretty much everyone involved - the prosecution for trying to legislate gun control through the courtroom, and the defendants for acting irresponsibly, albiet not illegally. While I'm usually reluctant to quote "Law & Order" in a legal discussion (since it's not even remotely realistic), this episode stuck out simply as a well-balanced and intelligent investigation of both sides of the issue, neatly summed up by the judge's closing speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted October 20, 2005 Author Share Posted October 20, 2005 Does this law protect them against suits based on a defective product? If the safety catch is broken, are they immune? Are the damages limited? 481407[/snapback] Haven't read it, but don't we both doubt it? That would be irresponsible whatever the subject. If my pistol blows up in my face because they used substandard metals, I'm darn sure suing. However, I'm not going to sue Ruger if I get winged while some crack head is holding up the 7/11 store while I'm buying a pack of smokes. I'm not, as a city government - going to sue Colt because I can't control my crime rate (Atlanta, New Orleans and a few others). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 There was an old "Law & Order" episode based on precisely this. Some gomer modifys a semi-auto gun to fire full auto and machine-guns a bunch of people. Prosecution decides to go after the gun manufacturer on the grounds that the gun was "used as designed", in that the modification to full auto leveraged a design characteristic that the company could have easily fixed but didn't, thereby creating an "inherently dangerous" product. The ultimate resolution was the judge throwing out the case and scolding pretty much everyone involved - the prosecution for trying to legislate gun control through the courtroom, and the defendants for acting irresponsibly, albiet not illegally. While I'm usually reluctant to quote "Law & Order" in a legal discussion (since it's not even remotely realistic), this episode stuck out simply as a well-balanced and intelligent investigation of both sides of the issue, neatly summed up by the judge's closing speech. 481451[/snapback] It isn't realitstic but as these shows go, it is the most realistic of the bunch. Realistic would be boring, believe me. An inherently dangerous product gives rise to a duty on the part of the manufacturer to warn the end user of that danger unless it is an obvious one. Thus you would not have to warn a consumer that a gun can kill but you might have to warn the purchaser of a firecracker of how far away they should stand before setting it off. A firecracker that doesn't blow up would have no utility, no use. Yet things that explode are dangerous. The law's answer is that the product may be made and sold even though it is dangerous but it must be sold responsibly, ie, with the appropriate warnings. It may not be a perfect solution and probably leads to too many warnings in some cases and not enough in others but it is a workable rule on the whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Haven't read it, but don't we both doubt it? That would be irresponsible whatever the subject. If my pistol blows up in my face because they used substandard metals, I'm darn sure suing. However, I'm not going to sue Ruger if I get winged while some crack head is holding up the 7/11 store while I'm buying a pack of smokes. I'm not, as a city government - going to sue Colt because I can't control my crime rate (Atlanta, New Orleans and a few others). 481494[/snapback] We'll both have to read it I guess. I have no confidence that the legislation will be reasonably limited. Pigs at the trough and all, super powerful lobby. What if you are the sole support for a family of 7 and the crackhead who winged you has no insurance and you are unable to work. Would you sue if you learned that the manufacturer advertised the gun in "Crackhead Times" and sold it at a discount to any customer who could produce an empty crack vial? I mean if your choice was the kids living in a cardboard box and going after a company who actively encouraged the use of their products by criminals, would you at least consider the possibility? Are there no circumstances, even rare ones, where a manufacturer's marketing and sales techniques might have contributed, even if secondarily, to the criminal use of the weapon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts