The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity

[Rct_Tsoul]

Now there is a case in Las Vegas about a black man that had a Glock 17, the police went to apprehend him, the black man pulled his Glock 17, held it sideways, and started firing, the gun jammed, and resulted in the black man getting multiple shot plugged into him by the police, now I don't know legal stuff, but the black man is suing Glock for being physically paralyzed from the waste down because his gun failed, if it would have functioned as intended he would have been able to kill both police and got away without any return gunfire, thus not being paralyzed from the waist down now, I don't think he has a case.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Now there is a case in Las Vegas about a black man that had a Glock 17, the police went to apprehend him, the black man pulled his Glock 17, held it sideways, and started firing, the gun jammed, and resulted in the black man getting multiple shot plugged into him by the police, now I don't know legal stuff, but the black man is suing Glock for being physically paralyzed from the waste down because his gun failed, if it would have functioned as intended he would have been able to kill both police and got away without any return gunfire, thus not being paralyzed from the waist down now, I don't think he has a case.

I think it will depend on the judge he gets.

Unless Glock can show that 'gangster shooting' is a misuse of the weapon and counter to it's design capabilities.

 

[PaulS1950]

The only gun I have that was made "to kill" is the 03A3 WW II 3006 that I inherited from my dad. The other guns were made to hunt with or for competition target shooting or for informal target shooting. I am almost sure the 3006 has not killed anyone since my dad bought it through the federal program that sold military surplus guns to civilians - oh yea, that was what the NRA and Civilian Marksmanship Program were instituted for. In the 50s people still understood that self defense was for the defense of yourself and loved ones as well as for the state and the constitution. You can still buy surplus military weapons through the CMP and the NRA still facillitates it I do believe.

 

[Barb]

I guess we should hold car dealerships responsible if you buy a car from them and get into a accident..and the idiot beat goes on with media matters.

Firestone Tire Accidents - Defective Tire Injuries and Death

DUH

You're not too swift are you barb....next time your car gets used in the commision of a crime I sue YOU and the car dealer and the car manufacturer. Do you understand the stupidity of the law you're trying to pass?

No, I didn't think you would...

The poster I responded to stipulated accidents, not crime. In either case, someone, or ones, face injury, death, or dismemberment.

Any Tort reform deals with limiting and enumerating the liabilities companies face for the results of actions or inaction, decisions based in malfeasance, laziness, or greed. When the cost of responsibility is limited by Tort reform to something that can be written into the business plan as a cost of doing business - a cost passed on to the consumer - the business in question is encouraged to continue their slip-shod ways, as they have no penalty for doing so.

 

[Barb]

I guess we should hold car dealerships responsible if you buy a car from them and get into a accident..and the idiot beat goes on with media matters.

Firestone Tire Accidents - Defective Tire Injuries and Death

DUH

DEFECTIVE TIRE, duh. Damn you people are so freaking stupid.

Same principle. You want auto exactly? How about Toyota? More?

Investigative Reporters and Editors | Stories

 

[JustTheFacts]

By Sergio Munoz

As major media outlets report on gun violence prevention strategies in the wake of the Newtown tragedy, they have ignored a controversial law that shields the firearms industry from being held accountable.

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":

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is also commonly referred to as the "Gun Protection Act." The law dismissed all current claims against gun manufacturers in both federal and state courts and pre-empted future claims. The law could not be clearer in stating its purpose: "To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm caused solely by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended." There are some narrow exceptions for which liability is allowed, such as actions against transferors of firearms who knew the firearm would be used in drug trafficking or a violent crime by a party directly harmed by that conduct.

It is outrageous that a product that exists for no purpose other than to kill has an exemption from state tort liability. Allowing tort liability would force gun manufacturers to pay some of the costs imposed by their products, increase the prices for assault weapons and maybe even cause some manufacturers to stop making them.​

More: Why Isn't The Media Discussing The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity? | Blog | Media Matters for America

Wait, what? Are you actually suggesting that a company should be liable if a person unrelated to that company used one of their products in the commission of a crime?


Let me ask you. Had GM ever been sued for their part in any high speed chases?

 

[westwall]

Now there is a case in Las Vegas about a black man that had a Glock 17, the police went to apprehend him, the black man pulled his Glock 17, held it sideways, and started firing, the gun jammed, and resulted in the black man getting multiple shot plugged into him by the police, now I don't know legal stuff, but the black man is suing Glock for being physically paralyzed from the waste down because his gun failed, if it would have functioned as intended he would have been able to kill both police and got away without any return gunfire, thus not being paralyzed from the waist down now, I don't think he has a case.

I think it will depend on the judge he gets.

Unless Glock can show that 'gangster shooting' is a misuse of the weapon and counter to it's design capabilities.

I think the "story" is a tall tale. Glocks work fine no matter which angle you fire them.

 

[zonly1]

Two of those people had no history of mental illness, and one of them stole the guns he used. Can you explain how more laws will keep people from breaking laws?

When the guns aren't available, you can't break the law...

This is really fucking simple, and the rest of the world has figured this out...

Hey jackasssss why don't you explain 500 homocides in Barry's(Sweet Home Chicago) back yard, with top notch strict gun laws/assault weapons you morons having trouble with. It makes no difference. You gotta wonder why ramm step down to over see above stats and facts.

Do you fags in chicago, work w/o a teleprompter(s)???????

 

[tonystewart1]

If gun manufactuers endorsed or encouraged the use of their product in an illegal manner then they would be held accountable. It looks like the bill is in response to a future knee jerk reaction by those looking for revenge when a loved one is killed with a gun. Gun makers have never claimed there product was safe like tobacco companies did.

 

[JoeB131]

Two of those people had no history of mental illness, and one of them stole the guns he used. Can you explain how more laws will keep people from breaking laws?

When the guns aren't available, you can't break the law...

This is really fucking simple, and the rest of the world has figured this out...

That explains the complete lack of school shootings in the UK since they effectively outlawed guns.

1996

That must be the exception. I am sure it got better after they made handguns illegal right after Dunblame.

2010

I have said this before, I will say it again, name a country with strict gun control laws, I will find a shooting. You idiots should just pretend I don't exist, it will make you feel better.

Actually, pretending you are sane is your real problem.

You do realize that that a 14 year gap between mass shootings, is actually pretty fucking good, right? We can't go a year without a couple of them.I mean you really can't be that stupid, can you?

 

[JoeB131]

If gun manufactuers endorsed or encouraged the use of their product in an illegal manner then they would be held accountable. It looks like the bill is in response to a future knee jerk reaction by those looking for revenge when a loved one is killed with a gun. Gun makers have never claimed there product was safe like tobacco companies did.

No, guy, the purpose is to drive them completely out of business by taking the profit out of making devices that kill people.

No profit, they'll stop making guns, or at the very least, they'll be a lot more selective about who they sell them to.

Nobody put "Second Amendment Principles" above their pocketbook.

 

[JoeB131]

Two of those people had no history of mental illness, and one of them stole the guns he used. Can you explain how more laws will keep people from breaking laws?

When the guns aren't available, you can't break the law...

This is really fucking simple, and the rest of the world has figured this out...

Hey jackasssss why don't you explain 500 homocides in Barry's(Sweet Home Chicago) back yard, with top notch strict gun laws/assault weapons you morons having trouble with. It makes no difference. You gotta wonder why ramm step down to over see above stats and facts.

Do you fags in chicago, work w/o a teleprompter(s)???????

Again, you can't have an effective gun control law unless it's for the whole country. The gun sellers got around the Chicago law by setting up gun shops in places like Cicero, a mobbed up suburb where the brothels used to operate pretty much in the open.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If gun manufactuers endorsed or encouraged the use of their product in an illegal manner then they would be held accountable. It looks like the bill is in response to a future knee jerk reaction by those looking for revenge when a loved one is killed with a gun. Gun makers have never claimed there product was safe like tobacco companies did.

No, guy, the purpose is to drive them completely out of business by taking the profit out of making devices that kill people.

No profit, they'll stop making guns, or at the very least, they'll be a lot more selective about who they sell them to.

Nobody put "Second Amendment Principles" above their pocketbook.

But asking someone to show photo ID at a voting booth is a "poll tax" and an infringement on their "right to vote", amiright?

 

[JoeB131]

If gun manufactuers endorsed or encouraged the use of their product in an illegal manner then they would be held accountable. It looks like the bill is in response to a future knee jerk reaction by those looking for revenge when a loved one is killed with a gun. Gun makers have never claimed there product was safe like tobacco companies did.

No, guy, the purpose is to drive them completely out of business by taking the profit out of making devices that kill people.

No profit, they'll stop making guns, or at the very least, they'll be a lot more selective about who they sell them to.

Nobody put "Second Amendment Principles" above their pocketbook.

But asking someone to show photo ID at a voting booth is a "poll tax" and an infringement on their "right to vote", amiright?

Exactly.

Man, that was pretty stupid of you to try it. You actually had MORE minorities show up at the polls after you tried to pull that shit.

Hey, here's a whacky concept... Maybe you should try to get minorties to vote FOR you instead of trying to block them from doing it.

 

[bripat9643]

When the guns aren't available, you can't break the law...

This is really fucking simple, and the rest of the world has figured this out...

That explains the complete lack of school shootings in the UK since they effectively outlawed guns.

1996

That must be the exception. I am sure it got better after they made handguns illegal right after Dunblame.

2010

I have said this before, I will say it again, name a country with strict gun control laws, I will find a shooting. You idiots should just pretend I don't exist, it will make you feel better.

Actually, pretending you are sane is your real problem.

You do realize that that a 14 year gap between mass shootings, is actually pretty fucking good, right? We can't go a year without a couple of them.I mean you really can't be that stupid, can you?

The U.S. is 5 times the size of the UK, so it's not that great.

 

[JoeB131]

That explains the complete lack of school shootings in the UK since they effectively outlawed guns.

1996

That must be the exception. I am sure it got better after they made handguns illegal right after Dunblame.

2010

I have said this before, I will say it again, name a country with strict gun control laws, I will find a shooting. You idiots should just pretend I don't exist, it will make you feel better.

Actually, pretending you are sane is your real problem.

You do realize that that a 14 year gap between mass shootings, is actually pretty fucking good, right? We can't go a year without a couple of them.I mean you really can't be that stupid, can you?

The U.S. is 5 times the size of the UK, so it's not that great.

Actually, we've had four or five mass shooting incidents THIS YEAR.

The Brits have one every 14 years.

 

[AmericanFirst]

By Sergio Munoz

As major media outlets report on gun violence prevention strategies in the wake of the Newtown tragedy, they have ignored a controversial law that shields the firearms industry from being held accountable.

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":

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is also commonly referred to as the "Gun Protection Act." The law dismissed all current claims against gun manufacturers in both federal and state courts and pre-empted future claims. The law could not be clearer in stating its purpose: "To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm caused solely by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended." There are some narrow exceptions for which liability is allowed, such as actions against transferors of firearms who knew the firearm would be used in drug trafficking or a violent crime by a party directly harmed by that conduct.

It is outrageous that a product that exists for no purpose other than to kill has an exemption from state tort liability. Allowing tort liability would force gun manufacturers to pay some of the costs imposed by their products, increase the prices for assault weapons and maybe even cause some manufacturers to stop making them.​

More: Why Isn't The Media Discussing The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity? | Blog | Media Matters for America

Good law. Of course socialist idiots like you don't like that fact. IDIOT!!!

 

[Gadawg73]

Still no proof here, or anywhere, that gun manufacturers have any kind of immunity from their negligence.
Waiting but since there is none under the law here as thousands of sound lawsuits are being litigagated in the US now as we post.
The liberal wants immunity for the human that improperly uses a weapon to ban weapons from law abiding citizens.

 

[Unkotare]

That would work for me.

You work on the assumption that I care if you can get a gun or not. I really don't.

But I will bet, the first time a gunmaker has to pay out a settlement to a family whose kid was shot in a school, they'll seriously look at how they market and manufacture them.

because the TV broadcasts are flooded with commercials from the gun manufacturers glorifying violence?

No wait, that's the video games..............

The Japanese play the same violent videogames we do.

And they had 11 gun murders last year.

Oh, but they don't have guns available to the public, that's the difference.

There are other ways to murder people, you moron.

 

[Unkotare]

because the TV broadcasts are flooded with commercials from the gun manufacturers glorifying violence?

No wait, that's the video games..............

The Japanese play the same violent videogames we do.

And they had 11 gun murders last year.

Oh, but they don't have guns available to the public, that's the difference.

Japan is a homogeneous, racist culture.

That is as inaccurate and unfair a generalization as joeB's sweeping condemnations of American culture. Don't stoop to his level.