The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity

[Erand7899]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

Are Automobile makers held liable for misuse of automobiles? Your ignorance is only exceeded by your willingness to share it with the rest of us.

 

[Lakhota]

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.

That law needs repealed.

 

[tjvh]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

Do we also sue Pool makers when children drown? Stop being such a nut job.

 

[Lakhota]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

Do we also sue Pool makers when children drown? Stop being such a nut job.

I didn't know pools were made to kill people.

 

[TemplarKormac]

IF guns aren't designed to kill - what was the point of the 2nd Amendment?

The 2nd Amendment does not address knives and baseball bats.

They don't. They kill when they are made to kill. Guns are tools, not sentient beings. A computer computes when you tell it to compute. Is such simple logic beyond you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

Do we also sue Pool makers when children drown? Stop being such a nut job.

I didn't know pools were made to kill people.

You can use anything to kill someone. I can st a traffic cone in the middle of a highway and cause a multi car pileup that kills dozens of people at a time. You can kill someone in the pool, but it takes you to kill them, not the pool.

So should we ban pools and traffic cones? Why should we ban guns?

I thought as much.

 

[Geaux4it]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

Accountable for what?

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

IF guns aren't designed to kill - what was the point of the 2nd Amendment?

The 2nd Amendment does not address knives and baseball bats.

You're right, it's about the right to keep and bear arms.

-Geaux

Legal Theory of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

(4) The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line. The standard has to be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny, but the precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally. The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons that do not cause mass destruction. If we follow the rule that personal rights should be interpreted broadly and governmental powers narrowly, which was the intention of the Framers, instead of the reverse, then "arms" must be interpreted broadly.

 

[midcan5]

The problem here is that nothing is so simple as the assumption all things are either or. You are either responsible or not responsible. Are we creations of our self. Does possibility ever enter the picture. I am for the moment a mildly psychopathic teenager, I have access to various weapons, I go out into the street and I kill lots because of the weapon. I am for the moment a mildly psychopathic teenager, I have no access to weapons I go out into street and I scream obscenities at the moon and other more animate objects who smile and wave. So then responsibility lies solely with the person regardless of the situation, or the background of the person, or the possibilities of violence? Why don't we arm small children and tell them be careful and if we did do we have any culpability in what happens? But little children don't know how to handle these weapons. Hm..but then we assume everyone else does. And thus everyone else can be armed because now we assume responsibility regardless of anything at all. Society grants to the person a responsibility they would not personally grant to the same known person. Thus the gun death rate in America.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...s-doesn-t-make-sense-to-me-5.html#post7038526 ---- and ---- http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/267838-fuck-you-guns-post6599617.html

Is the N.R.A. Un-American? - NYTimes.com




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F0rZeiC9bc]The Word N.R.A.-vana The Colbert Report May 1, 2013 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Geaux4it]

midcan5- Looking for your message here and seeking clarification. Can you please explain your position without the ambiguity?

-Geaux

 

[Lakhota]

The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity

Why did Bush do this?

 

[Spoonman]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

you liberal spin doctors are really pathetic. if a gun is faulty and a user is injured as a result they ate. just like any other product. if some guy beats some other guy to death with a baseball bat Louisville slugger isn't held liable. btw, did you know bats kill more people than AR 15s?

 

[Spoonman]

Time to tax guns and ammo.

they are taxed according to state laws like any other products

 

[The Rabbi]

The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity

Why did Bush do this?

Die, thread, DIE!

 

[bripat9643]

The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity

Why did Bush do this?

Because we don't need thousands of bootlicking left-wing kooks suing gun manufacturers to get what they can't get through the legislative process.

Denied, asshole. Now you can't sue the 2nd amendment out of existence as you and your ilk were planning to do.

 

[Freewill]

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

When was the last time a car company was sued for someone who drove their cars recklessly?

 

[Lakhota]

Gun makers and dealers don't deserve immunity.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Gun makers and dealers don't deserve immunity.

I agree, IF they actually commit a crime, they should be tried and punished if found guilty.

 

[bripat9643]

Gun makers and dealers don't deserve immunity.

Everyone deserves immunity from the schemes of leftist retards like you.

 

[LeftofLeft]

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

Here is why the Media is not discussing it. IT is an election year and too many Democrats in swing states where they like to keep their guns don't want this to be a topic. It could mean the Senate. Liberals who are all for grabbing guns and turning them over to the state are the Base......Your vote is expected. Who else are you going to vote for? If you want to keep the Senate, be the loyal sheep that you are and vote for the guys and gals with (D) next to their names........and shut up about the goddamn guns. Key Democrats who like their guns mean all of the difference.