Biden endorses suing gun manufacturers .

[task0778]

In 2005, Congress passed the bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) by a nearly two‐thirds margin. PLCAA’s purpose was to curb efforts by gun‐control advocates to circumvent state legislatures and attack Second Amendment rights through a never‐ending series of lawsuits against manufacturers and retailers of firearms to hold them financially responsible for crimes committed using the weapons they make and sell. Although the dubious legal theories behind these lawsuits only rarely resulted in verdicts against manufacturers and retailers, the mounting costs of the lawsuits began to run gun makers and sellers out of business. Litigation‐induced bankruptcy, it turned out, was an effective way of restricting Americans’ ability to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Congress passed PLCAA to end that abuse of the judicial system, providing firearm manufacturers and retailers with immunity against legal claims resulting from the criminal use of their products.

https://www.cato.org/blog/protecting-gun-manufacturers-frivolous-lawsuits

There are exceptions though, plaintiffs can made use of the "predicate exception." Under that exception, a gun manufacturer can be sued if it knowingly violated a statute involving the "sale or marketing" of a firearm. Remington lost a lawsuit because the court found that their advertising could have led to the Sandy Hook shooting.

 

[2aguy]

it seems that already the left is going further than just an assault weapons band ... suing gun manufacturers when a criminal uses a gun would put the manufacturers out of business .

Biden calls for assault weapons ban, making gun manufacturers liable for shootings

President Biden on Thursday made an emotional appeal for ambitious new gun laws including a ban on military-style rifles, as lawmakers wrangled bitterly over how to prevent more bloodshed in America.

www.washingtontimes.com

Yep.....they really, really want to be able to turn loose the democrat party legal warfare/terrorism wing of their party on gun makers...

The problem.......if you do this....then every other product becomes exposed to lawsuits for 3rd party crime.......

Our system isn't based on punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty...but the democrats see that as a flaw, not a feature..

 

[2aguy]

In 2005, Congress passed the bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) by a nearly two‐thirds margin. PLCAA’s purpose was to curb efforts by gun‐control advocates to circumvent state legislatures and attack Second Amendment rights through a never‐ending series of lawsuits against manufacturers and retailers of firearms to hold them financially responsible for crimes committed using the weapons they make and sell. Although the dubious legal theories behind these lawsuits only rarely resulted in verdicts against manufacturers and retailers, the mounting costs of the lawsuits began to run gun makers and sellers out of business. Litigation‐induced bankruptcy, it turned out, was an effective way of restricting Americans’ ability to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Congress passed PLCAA to end that abuse of the judicial system, providing firearm manufacturers and retailers with immunity against legal claims resulting from the criminal use of their products.

https://www.cato.org/blog/protecting-gun-manufacturers-frivolous-lawsuits

There are exceptions though, plaintiffs can made use of the "predicate exception." Under that exception, a gun manufacturer can be sued if it knowingly violated a statute involving the "sale or marketing" of a firearm. Remington lost a lawsuit because the court found that their advertising could have led to the Sandy Hook shooting.

They didn't lose a lawsuit...it never reached court....Remington did not exist at the time of the settlement, the insurance companies settled it.....

 

[2aguy]

Sounds like a plan. I doubt any jury in the nation would award damages. And even if they did, the gun company would just appeal and appeal and appeal and appeal and appeal all the way to the supreme court who has shown that it cuts the constitution to fit its agenda. But it is at least something.

Moron.....the point is to make it cost so much they go bangrupt ......but you know this and can't wait for the legal warfare/terrorism wing of the democrats to destroy more freedoms.

 

[2aguy]

The FBI stats show murders are committed with cars, knives, hammers, baseball bats, etc... Hell, Let's sue 'em all.

Manufacturers are not responsible for how twisted, sick, evil fucks misuse their products.

Johnny Depp was accused of raping Amber Heard with a bottle. She should sue the shit out of the manufacturer of whatever drink / bottle that was.

Every time there is a car accident where someone is hurt or killed, like in a DUI, we should be able to sue the shit out of the car manufacturers.

Hooray! It's the age of non-accountability. You aren't responsible for any of your actions at all.

You aren't to blame for driving with a .95 alcohol blood content level, running the red light, and killing that mother and daughter- it's the F*ing car manufacturer's fault or the alcohol maker's fault.

You aren't to blame for picking up that weapon, going down to the school, and killing those 19 kids - YOU ARE A VICTIM of the evil weapon and the company that made that legal, Constitutionally protected weapon.


Good frickin" grief....

Yep....any business out there should defend the gun companies because if they don't, the democrat party legal warfare/terrorism division will target them too...

 

[task0778]

They didn't lose a lawsuit...it never reached court....Remington did not exist at the time of the settlement, the insurance companies settled it.....

Technically true, but the plaintiffs got $73 million, right? And Remington went bankrupt, right? So, for all practical purposes the end result was the same: Remington lost.

 

[MisterBeale]

Look what happened to Remington after getting sued. And that shitfaced schmuck said today that he has no truck with gun owners. Sure, keep your guns, we'll just make the price of bullets prohibitively expensive, then unavailable, then put all the gun makers out of business.

Putin and the Russians aren't actually responsible for invading Ukraine. . . that is the fault of the companies that made the weapons and equipment they are using.

The US should lift all sanctions on Russia, and put them on the arms manufacturers in Russia.

 

[Open Bolt]

Technically true, but the plaintiffs got $73 million, right? And Remington went bankrupt, right? So, for all practical purposes the end result was the same: Remington lost.

Remington went bankrupt mostly because their then-owners were doing a lousy job at making a good product. The company is doing fine under their new owners.

The plaintiffs did get $73 million because the liability insurers of the old company decided to settle. If I was a stockholder of one of those insurers I'd be pretty pissed off at them for settling.

 

[Orangecat]

it seems that already the left is going further than just an assault weapons band ... suing gun manufacturers when a criminal uses a gun would put the manufacturers out of business .

Biden calls for assault weapons ban, making gun manufacturers liable for shootings

President Biden on Thursday made an emotional appeal for ambitious new gun laws including a ban on military-style rifles, as lawmakers wrangled bitterly over how to prevent more bloodshed in America.

www.washingtontimes.com

Fuck Biden.

 

[candycorn]

sounds like a plan ? at least its something ? wow ! it doesnt matter what the radical left does you will defend them ! you know full well the left is trampling on the 2 nd amendment !

Ummm...no. Suing gun manufacturers isn't covered by the 2nd Amendment.

 

[candycorn]

The objective is to bankrupt gun manufacturers through frivolous lawsuits, not actually win the cases. This is all in the anti-gunners' plan to outlaw all gun ownership.

You're worried about the earnings of gun companies?

LOL.

 

[2aguy]

Ummm...no. Suing gun manufacturers isn't covered by the 2nd Amendment.

Yeah…it is.

 

[2aguy]

You're worried about the earnings of gun companies?

View attachment 653729

LOL.

No…we know that the democrat party wants to use their legal warfare wing to attack the Right to keep and bear arms.

 

[candycorn]

Yeah…it is.

I see you're still cutting the 2nd Amendment to fit.

 

[candycorn]

No…we know that the democrat party wants to use their legal warfare wing to attack the Right to keep and bear arms.

Well, keep doing what you're doing... stating that convicted gun murderers deserve NO PRISON TIME (unless they are black) and you do their work for them.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

sounds like a plan ? at least its something ? wow ! it doesnt matter what the radical left does you will defend them ! you know full well the left is trampling on the 2 nd amendment !

If gun manufacturers can be sued for how gun owners use their products so can every other manufacturer in the US.

That would be the end of manufacturing in the US.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

In 2005, Congress passed the bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) by a nearly two‐thirds margin. PLCAA’s purpose was to curb efforts by gun‐control advocates to circumvent state legislatures and attack Second Amendment rights through a never‐ending series of lawsuits against manufacturers and retailers of firearms to hold them financially responsible for crimes committed using the weapons they make and sell. Although the dubious legal theories behind these lawsuits only rarely resulted in verdicts against manufacturers and retailers, the mounting costs of the lawsuits began to run gun makers and sellers out of business. Litigation‐induced bankruptcy, it turned out, was an effective way of restricting Americans’ ability to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Congress passed PLCAA to end that abuse of the judicial system, providing firearm manufacturers and retailers with immunity against legal claims resulting from the criminal use of their products.

https://www.cato.org/blog/protecting-gun-manufacturers-frivolous-lawsuits

There are exceptions though, plaintiffs can made use of the "predicate exception." Under that exception, a gun manufacturer can be sued if it knowingly violated a statute involving the "sale or marketing" of a firearm. Remington lost a lawsuit because the court found that their advertising could have led to the Sandy Hook shooting.

Actually that case never went to trial. Remington's Liability carrier offered to settle the case for their maximum limit of the policy and so of course they took the money and ran.

Nothing says "ethics" or "character" like profiting off of the broken and dead bodies of defenseless children.

 

[Batcat]

In 2005, Congress passed the bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) by a nearly two‐thirds margin. PLCAA’s purpose was to curb efforts by gun‐control advocates to circumvent state legislatures and attack Second Amendment rights through a never‐ending series of lawsuits against manufacturers and retailers of firearms to hold them financially responsible for crimes committed using the weapons they make and sell. Although the dubious legal theories behind these lawsuits only rarely resulted in verdicts against manufacturers and retailers, the mounting costs of the lawsuits began to run gun makers and sellers out of business. Litigation‐induced bankruptcy, it turned out, was an effective way of restricting Americans’ ability to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Congress passed PLCAA to end that abuse of the judicial system, providing firearm manufacturers and retailers with immunity against legal claims resulting from the criminal use of their products.

https://www.cato.org/blog/protecting-gun-manufacturers-frivolous-lawsuits

There are exceptions though, plaintiffs can made use of the "predicate exception." Under that exception, a gun manufacturer can be sued if it knowingly violated a statute involving the "sale or marketing" of a firearm. Remington lost a lawsuit because the court found that their advertising could have led to the Sandy Hook shooting.

Watch some automobile commercials. They often show cars being driven in a reckless manner. If you can sue a gun manufacturer for commercials about his product you should also be able to sue Ford or Chevy if you were hit by someone speeding well over the limit.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Watch some automobile commercials. They often show cars being driven in a reckless manner. If you can sue a gun manufacturer for commercials about his product you should also be able to sue Ford or Chevy if you were hit by someone speeding well over the limit.

Or driving carelessly/recklessly who injures or kills someone.

The unintended consequences of such legislation would eliminate manufacturing of all kinds in the US in very short order.

 

[Batcat]

Or driving carelessly/recklessly who injures or kills someone.

The unintended consequences of such legislation would eliminate manufacturing of all kinds in the US in very short order.

I wonder if the Democrats stacked the Supreme Court they could get it to rule that you can only sue gun manufacturers when their products are used irresponsibly.