KRC Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 The bill in question: Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 From the bill summary: Excludes from such prohibition actions: (1) brought by a directly harmed party against a person who transfers a firearm knowing that it will be used to commit a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime; (2) brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se; (3) in which a manufacturer or seller of a firearm knowingly violated a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the firearm and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought; (4) for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the firearm; (5) for death, physical injuries, or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the firearm when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries, or property damage; or (6) commenced by the Attorney General to enforce firearms provisions under the federal criminal code or the Internal Revenue Code. Permits a person under age 17 to recover damages authorized under federal or state law in a civil action that meets specified requirements. 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] Here it is bib, in all it's glory: Feds overrule the states Some observations: It covers waaaaaayyyyyy more than just gun manufacturers. It covers trade assocations, organizations, federations, just about anything or anyone. It is limited to suits resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product unless certain exceptions apply. Problem I see is what if a guy has a gun that isn't registered. Isn't that "unlawful"? Then lets say the gun misfires due to a defect. Is the suit for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of the product? My favorite part, under stated purposes: "To preserve and protect the Separation of Powers doctrine and important principles of federalism, State sovereignty and comity between sister States." Of course, the legislation was drawn up and passed specifically to stop suits filed by state and local authorities against gun manufacturers. Preserving states rights by pulverizing them, cheeky devils aren't they? I have no doubt that the laws opponents will seek for a way around it and it supporters will try and invoke it in every gun defect case that comes down the pipe. I am also suspect that this particular invasion of states rights will pass without notice by those who usually complain the loudest about such things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted October 20, 2005 Author Share Posted October 20, 2005 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? 481520[/snapback] Ah, Counsellor...I abhor the "slippery slope" cliche, but here we are. Nothing is that black and white, we both know that. How about I'm the sole support for a family of 7, and while crossing the street I get crippled by a drunk driving a Chevy? He's drunk because the Bud commercials are really cool, and he's a lemming. Chevy advertises their car as "A smart car" with all kinds of technology to make driving easier. He hits me because while intoxicated, he's busy programming the next bar into his nav computer, instead of looking at the road. His insurance lapsed, because he didn't pay it. But, he registered the car with a valid card. So, I'm out of work. Do I have a suit against A-B and GM? Can I sue the insurance company for not informing the state DMV? Can I sue the state DMV for not knowing his insurance expired? This isn't a gun issue. It's a tort issue being used to backdoor 2A rights. If every time someone gets shot, the door is open to sue a manufacturer for a few mil, those costs will get passed to the consumer and/or the manufacturer will make the business decision not to market there. Plus, Mayors of certain municipalities have used this to pander to their democratic base from an urban standpoint as a crime control measure. It's been marketed that way. Straight up, didn't even try to hide it. Thankfully, there are a lot of Democratic representatives who hunt, and own guns. Not every NRA member is a toothless Bible toting ignorant Republican redneck, as much as many of you would like to think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Can't sue gun manufacturers. Guess the anti-gun lobby will have to try something else. 481277[/snapback] You mean, the bad guys won a lawsuit, but it was good that they won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted October 21, 2005 Author Share Posted October 21, 2005 You mean, the bad guys won a lawsuit, but it was good that they won. 481655[/snapback] kitty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 kitty. 481689[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 From the bill summary: 481534[/snapback] Lots and lots of opportunities in that language to bar lawsuits not meant to be barred. Like I said, I wish I could buy enough congressman to get the "You Can't Sue Mickey Act" passed. By the way, just about every state common law I know would not permit a plaintiff to hold a defendant liable for the intentional acts of another. You can only hold them responsible for their own acts of negligence. The states which are pursuing gun manufacturers are doing so, I beleive, on a theory that says that marketing your product to crooks can, under certain circumstances, constitute negligence. What Congress has done, essentially, is to decide that under almost no imaginable circumstances can marketing a firearm to crooks constitute negligence. Maybe that is a good idea, maybe not. Either way one might come down on that issue, the bottom line is that the feds took this decision away from every jury, every judge, every state legislature, evey governor and every state citizen in the country. For those whose love of the second amendment make them willing to overlook this particular exercise in federal power, you might want to consider that if you grant to the feds the right to bar all such suits automatically, you also grant them the right to expand manufacturer liablity, automatically. Thus, if the political makeup of congress should change, as it periodically does, what will be your answer when they pass a law saying a manufacturer is automatically liable for all injuries caused by their product? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Ah, Counsellor...I abhor the "slippery slope" cliche, but here we are. Nothing is that black and white, we both know that. How about I'm the sole support for a family of 7, and while crossing the street I get crippled by a drunk driving a Chevy? He's drunk because the Bud commercials are really cool, and he's a lemming. Chevy advertises their car as "A smart car" with all kinds of technology to make driving easier. He hits me because while intoxicated, he's busy programming the next bar into his nav computer, instead of looking at the road. His insurance lapsed, because he didn't pay it. But, he registered the car with a valid card. So, I'm out of work. Do I have a suit against A-B and GM? Can I sue the insurance company for not informing the state DMV? Can I sue the state DMV for not knowing his insurance expired? This isn't a gun issue. It's a tort issue being used to backdoor 2A rights. If every time someone gets shot, the door is open to sue a manufacturer for a few mil, those costs will get passed to the consumer and/or the manufacturer will make the business decision not to market there. Plus, Mayors of certain municipalities have used this to pander to their democratic base from an urban standpoint as a crime control measure. It's been marketed that way. Straight up, didn't even try to hide it. Thankfully, there are a lot of Democratic representatives who hunt, and own guns. Not every NRA member is a toothless Bible toting ignorant Republican redneck, as much as many of you would like to think so. 481557[/snapback] I grew up in central NY so I don't need a lecture on gun rights nor do I need to be enlightened that not all gun owners are Republican redneck ingrates. Not all democrats are anti-gun whacks out to save Bambi's mom. I just think there is a happy medium between your worry that "...every time someone gets shot, the door is open..." and a comprehensive bar on virtually all suits. I think we might be able to prevent the bad ones and still allow the reasonable ones without throwing them all out. Mostly, I think the states should decide which ones are good cases and which ones are bad rather than that decision being made for every one, everywhere by congress. As for pandering, state laws already make it pretty much impossible to make one person liable for the intentional torts of another which is what this legislation simply repeats. Why pass a law that solves a problem already solved at the state level? Perhaps to pander those devoted to gun rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 I grew up in central NY so I don't need a lecture on gun rights nor do I need to be enlightened that not all gun owners are Republican redneck ingrates. Not all democrats are anti-gun whacks out to save Bambi's mom. I just think there is a happy medium between your worry that "...every time someone gets shot, the door is open..." and a comprehensive bar on virtually all suits. I think we might be able to prevent the bad ones and still allow the reasonable ones without throwing them all out. Mostly, I think the states should decide which ones are good cases and which ones are bad rather than that decision being made for every one, everywhere by congress. As for pandering, state laws already make it pretty much impossible to make one person liable for the intentional torts of another which is what this legislation simply repeats. Why pass a law that solves a problem already solved at the state level? Perhaps to pander those devoted to gun rights? 481845[/snapback] Too bad the states managed to blow it. Now the gun lobby has put their collective hearts and souls into protecting the manufacturers, who aren't as rich as their Detroit or tobacco counterparts and can't afford to fight these suits with overwhelming legal power. It's a pretty typical response, to be honest. The liberals have it almost to an art form, which is why the "Assault Weapons" ban got passed the first time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 ... 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] Will all due respect Bib, please step down from your high horse. Whether you like it or not, you are a victim. Which means you are morally, if not legally, obligated to go after the gun company. Please step back in line. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. P.S. Since you are now a victim extraordinaire, you should really consider going after tobacco companies as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 Will all due respect Bib, please step down from your high horse. Whether you like it or not, you are a victim. Which means you are morally, if not legally, obligated to go after the gun company. Please step back in line. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. P.S. Since you are now a victim extraordinaire, you should really consider going after tobacco companies as well. 482697[/snapback] Should probably sue McDonald's as well, as you know the crackhead shooter would eventually eat a meal there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts