The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity

[Lakhota]

Hold gun makers and suppliers liable. That will change things.

Should we hold bathtub makers responsible for everyone who slips and kills himself taking a shower in a bathtub?

I've never seen a bathtub shoot anyone. Try to focus.

The people who slip and fall in them are still dead.

Duh, yeah, but we're talking about guns.

 

[Lakhota]

If there is faulty workmanship, you can hold the manufacturer liable.

But, we are not talking about what the maker is really responsible for, now are we?

Dynamite is regulated - so why not guns?

 

[amrchaos]

We get it Lakhota, you do not like guns.

However, your idea of holding the maker of an item liable if it is used in a crime is batsh#t loonytunes.

Think about what you are saying--I make a product, a person buys and use it t kill someone. I get punished for the actions of someone. That is not justice--that is madness!!

The only way a manufacturer can be held liable if they intentionally design a product for the act of a crime. Like if someone made crackpipes specifically for smoking crack--and that is hard to prove in court!!

 

[bripat9643]

Hold gun makers and suppliers liable. That will change things.

Should we hold bathtub makers responsible for everyone who slips and kills himself taking a shower in a bathtub?

I've never seen a bathtub shoot anyone. Try to focus.

The people who slip and fall in them are still dead.

Duh, yeah, but we're talking about guns.

Yeah? so?

 

[Lakhota]

Hold gun makers and suppliers liable. That will change things.

Should we hold bathtub makers responsible for everyone who slips and kills himself taking a shower in a bathtub?

I've never seen a bathtub shoot anyone. Try to focus.

The people who slip and fall in them are still dead.

Duh, yeah, but we're talking about guns.

Yeah? so?

If you choke on a carrot - do you blame the carrot?

 

[bripat9643]

Should we hold bathtub makers responsible for everyone who slips and kills himself taking a shower in a bathtub?

I've never seen a bathtub shoot anyone. Try to focus.

The people who slip and fall in them are still dead.

Duh, yeah, but we're talking about guns.

Yeah? so?

If you choke on a carrot - do you blame the carrot?

Apparently you do, because if someone shoots you, you blame the gun.

 

[Lakhota]

I've never seen a bathtub shoot anyone. Try to focus.

The people who slip and fall in them are still dead.

Duh, yeah, but we're talking about guns.

Yeah? so?

If you choke on a carrot - do you blame the carrot?

Apparently you do, because if someone shoots you, you blame the gun.

It depends on whether the shooter should have been allowed to have a gun and how the shooter got the gun.

 

[Politico]

Hold gun makers and suppliers liable. That will change things.

Should we hold bathtub makers responsible for everyone who slips and kills himself taking a shower in a bathtub?

I've never seen a bathtub shoot anyone. Try to focus.

I've never seen a gun shoot anyone either. Try to focus Leftytoon.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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

Do we sue car manufacturers after drunk driving accidents?

 

[GHook93]

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

You don't understand strict liability and this law makes sense. The ultimate intended use of guns is to shoot bullet and harm the target. Many times the target is a human. Guns are made to take life that is their intent. There is no product defect there.

If a manufacturer makes a defect gun and the gun backfires in error and kills someone you have a product defect ant this immunity law won't protect them.

Without the immunity law, then the line will essentially lawsuit the 2nd amendment out of existence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bassman007]

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

Do you advocate that butter knife makers be held liable if a moron stabs someone in the eye with a butter knife and they die? How about pen and pencil makers. You are an idiot.

 

[Bassman007]

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

You don't understand strict liability and this law makes sense. The ultimate intended use of guns is to shoot bullet and harm the target. Many times the target is a human. Guns are made to take life that is their intent. There is no product defect there.

If a manufacturer makes a defect gun and the gun backfires in error and kills someone you have a product defect ant this immunity law won't protect them.

Without the immunity law, then the line will essentially lawsuit the 2nd amendment out of existence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you are the idiot tapping on his phone as he drives...................Are you paying attention to your surroundings, ban I phones NOW

 

[mikegriffith1]

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

More far-left nuttiness. The law simply says that gun makers can't be sued just for making guns. If a defective gun causes harm and this can be proven by reasonable legal standards, then the gun maker is *not* exempt from litigation. The law simply protects gun makers from far-left gun grabbers who want to sue gun makers whenever someone is shot. Imagine if we applied that absurd logic to car makers--every time someone died in a car wreck, leeching lawyers could sue to car maker, even if the car was not defective.

 

[LOki]

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

They are. You're just making this up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

More far-left nuttiness. The law simply says that gun makers can't be sued just for making guns. If a defective gun causes harm and this can be proven by reasonable legal standards, then the gun maker is *not* exempt from litigation. The law simply protects gun makers from far-left gun grabbers who want to sue gun makers whenever someone is shot. Imagine if we applied that absurd logic to car makers--every time someone died in a car wreck, leeching lawyers could sue to car maker, even if the car was not defective.

Why was it the federal government's business to impose this law on the states? What happened to the 10th amendment your lot loves so much?

 

[Lakhota]

Hillary wants to hold gun makers and dealers accountable. Go Hillary!

Clinton's plan includes a repeal of the legal immunity gun manufacturers and dealers received under a law passed by Congress in 2005, something the NRA and other groups would be sure to fight against.

More: Hillary Clinton Calls On Gun Owners To 'Take Back' Second Amendment

 

[Timmy]

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

Do you advocate that butter knife makers be held liable if a moron stabs someone in the eye with a butter knife and they die? How about pen and pencil makers. You are an idiot.

But the knife makers have no such protection .

 

[bripat9643]

Hillary wants to hold gun makers and dealers accountable. Go Hillary!

Clinton's plan includes a repeal of the legal immunity gun manufacturers and dealers received under a law passed by Congress in 2005, something the NRA and other groups would be sure to fight against.

More: Hillary Clinton Calls On Gun Owners To 'Take Back' Second Amendment

Everyone who believes in the Bill of Rights would fight against such a Orwellian law.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Do you advocate that butter knife makers be held liable if a moron stabs someone in the eye with a butter knife and they die? How about pen and pencil makers. You are an idiot.

But the knife makers have no such protection .

They don't need it because the nut-burgers like you are not trying to make butter knives illegal.

 

[LOki]

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

Do you advocate that butter knife makers be held liable if a moron stabs someone in the eye with a butter knife and they die? How about pen and pencil makers. You are an idiot.

But the knife makers have no such protection .

If knife makers were being subjected to the same patently frivolous attacks, they'd have their protections specifically codified too... for the exact same legitimate reasons