Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Exhibit A, California's Gov Brown just passed into law draconian measures for semi auto rifles and ammunition. The law says this is to be implemented on the first of the year yet there is no way anyone can comply with this new law. We are to pay a "fee" pass a back ground check and then get some "ammo card" that we have to display to purchase loaded ammo. No brick and mortar building, as far as I know, carries such a thing.
For modern sporting rifles the DOJ is scrambling to interpret what moonbeam wants and figure out how to translate it to hard coded words law enforcement must learn and apply to daily life. This leaves the common man in limbo across the board.
This is serious stuff people. We are talking about life changing events called felony charges against millions of law abiding, tax payers. This is the crap we have been trying to point out. All in all these ridiculous laws will touch everyone as we all know someone who owns a firearm.
Well you need to wonder why gun manufacturers are singled out for protection like no other company. Why shouldn't a plaintiff have their day in court like any other industry, they still need to prove their case and it's not necessarily a foregone conclusion that the can win.
The gun industry has come a long way since the Saturday night special, their advertising has served them well.
who d you think supplies the military with their weapons of choice, and what do you think would happen to the military if you had your way, and the gun industry was subjected to big tobacco style lawsuits? once again, please be honest with what you really want, the end of guns in this country.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 12-28-2016 at 10:37 AM..
Reason: deleted quoted post
Well you need to wonder why gun manufacturers are singled out for protection like no other company. Why shouldn't a plaintiff have their day in court like any other industry, they still need to prove their case and it's not necessarily a foregone conclusion that the can win.
The gun industry has come a long way since the Saturday night special, their advertising has served them well.
That's because the gun industry was the target of frivolous lawsuits. If the same thing was done to Ford then the law would've passed for the same reason.
who d you think supplies the military with their weapons of choice, and what do you think would happen to the military if you had your way, and the gun industry was subjected to big tobacco style lawsuits? once again, please be honest with what you really want, the end of guns in this country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maccabee 2A
That's because the gun industry was the target of frivolous lawsuits. If the same thing was done to Ford then the law would've passed for the same reason.
They will survive same as the tobacco industry, frivolous lawsuits impact every industry.
Well you need to wonder why gun manufacturers are singled out for protection like no other company. Why shouldn't a plaintiff have their day in court like any other industry, they still need to prove their case and it's not necessarily a foregone conclusion that the can win.
The gun industry has come a long way since the Saturday night special, their advertising has served them well.
Do you ever wonder why Auto manufacturers aren't sued when a drunk driver kills someone with their brand of car? Is it because they aren't liable for the actions of people that own their vehicles, it's out of their control, any rational person sees that.
The anti-gun crowd isn't rational. You take the same scenario, but replace the car with a gun, then all of a sudden the company that made the object should by all means be held responsible for someone they have no control over killing someone with their product. For some reason when guns are involved, the anti gun crowd switches from placing the blame on the person to placing it on the gun manufacturer, when they blame the drunk driver for the killing and not the car manufacturer.
THAT is why firearms manufacturers are singled out.
The law that was proposed in my state would not criminalize a person who was unaware that his guns were stolen.
Then what good would the law have been anyway? If a gun was found at a crime scene, the straw purchaser who sold it to the criminal could just say he was unaware his gun was stolen....
Well you need to wonder why gun manufacturers are singled out for protection like no other company.
#1.) They need to be protected because unlike most industries, the gun industry is political. Opportunists with an agenda see lawsuits as a means to either put the industry out of business or to enact their agenda through settlement agreements. Lawsuits against the gun industry are less about redressing legitimate grievances and more about the broader issue of gun control. But it's also a lie that the gun industry is immune from lawsuits. If actual negligence or criminal activity occurs, the industry can in fact be sued with no problem.
#2.) It's just not true that the gun industry is the only industry that enjoys these kind of protections. One such industry that does is the aviation industry. The General Aviation Revitalization Act protects airline manufacturers from liability lawsuits after a certain length of time, even if negligence can be proven, so in that sense, the protections for the aviation industry actually go beyond those on of the gun industry.
Quote:
Why shouldn't a plaintiff have their day in court like any other industry, they still need to prove their case and it's not necessarily a foregone conclusion that the can win.
Even if they don't win, or even if the case only makes it to preliminary stages, it still costs the industry enormous amounts of money to have legal representation in court. That alone would bankrupt them.
But I'm still waiting for you to answer my simple question..... If a company does everything by the books, and everything is legal, do you think it's fair to hold them accountable when someone missuses their product? Why do you refuse to answer this question?
I have wondered if the gun control fanatics are more worried about getting shot or having to shoot someone to defend themselves.
I am an economic and civil rights Liberal. IMHO being able to keep and carry arms is a fundamental civil right. History has provided overwhelming evidence that the authorities are NOT able to protect individuals from violent assault. Only the potential victim is capable of doing that.
I would like to see the 1934 Gun Control Act Repealed. It, among other annoyances, outlaws keeping of carrying a short shotgun. Those are one of the most effective defensive weapons ever made. They should be legal as well and any and all full automatic guns. What weapon an individual chooses to carry should be their decision and not the authorities.
Be alert, be aware, be armed.
I knew that there was something that I could find to like about you!
VERY WELL SAID!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
