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.
The law absolves gun manufacturers from liability except from manufacturing and design defects, unlike every other industry.
There are two possibilities: (1) gun manufacturers have no liability a matter of law, so they have nothing to worry about in Court and this statute is superfluous; or (2) gun manufacturers might have some liability and the statute shields them from liability, unlike every other industry. Which is it?
If guns are so bad why have they not been sued like the tobacco industry or subject to class action law suits?
Well, those type of actions were being used until Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005. The law shields the gun industry from class action and other legal actions to hold them accountable. There are six exceptions to the law, but they are narrowly defined to product defects.
I believe if this law and other gun immunity laws were repealed the amount of gun violence and school shooting would drop and drop dramatically. Hit anyone in the pocketbook and there will be meaningful corrective action.
Tobacco lost their suits because they claimed their product didn’t cause health problems.
Indicate where the gun industry ever claimed that.
So I should be able to sue car companies when their products hit me. Right?
Thus gun companies have no immunity. You pulled that out of your bum.
So what you're basically advocating are SLAPP type suits against gun makers in order to force them out of business. Which is the only reason you're advocating them.
How do you know the merits of any particular lawsuit before the suit is brought?
SLAPP-type suits were dealt with using anti-SLAPP laws, not a ban on a category of lawsuits altogether.
None of you anti-free marketeers are interested in answering whether (1) gun manufacturers have no liability a matter of law, so they have nothing to worry about in Court and this statute is superfluous; or (2) gun manufacturers might have some liability and the statute shields them from liability, unlike every other industry?
No special law should exist to protect any industry.
The gun industry law violates Free Market Capitalism principles.
Not exactly.
No manufacturer shall be held responsible for the actions of another.
If I were to bring Studebaker back, and someone dies in one, as a result of careless or drunk driving on their part, that is their responsibility.
Not mine. That is misuse.
However. If I produce a defective car, one with a significant design flaw that leads to fatalities, then yes I am culpable for failing to address it.
Firearms manufactures are not responsible for the actions of others.
The end user is.
Same with tobacco, alcohol etc.
I disagree that in some states, a bar, right down to the individual bar tender is responsible for a drunk driver. Not at all.
If you go to a bar, and your intent is to consume alcohol, you absorb the risk that comes with the behavior of alcohol consumption.
You are responsible for your actions. You got in a car and killed others with it for being drunk, that's on you. Not the bar nor the bar tender either.
Where your logic really applies, is with pharmaceutical companies...
They push pills and "medications" with dire side effects... the percentages of these side effects, the chances of succumbing complications with these "medications" should be published and made aware at the doctors offices that your chances of developing mania, organ damage, etc are x%
The whole notion of nanny state protections, combined with a sue happy society, is disturbing.
No manufacturer shall be held responsible for the actions of another.
If I were to bring Studebaker back, and someone dies in one, as a result of careless or drunk driving on their part, that is their responsibility.
Not mine. That is misuse.
However. If I produce a defective car, one with a significant design flaw that leads to fatalities, then yes I am culpable for failing to address it.
Firearms manufactures are not responsible for the actions of others.
The end user is.
Same with tobacco, alcohol etc.
I disagree that in some states, a bar, right down to the individual bar tender is responsible for a drunk driver. Not at all.
If you go to a bar, and your intent is to consume alcohol, you absorb the risk that comes with the behavior of alcohol consumption.
You are responsible for your actions. You got in a car and killed others with it for being drunk, that's on you. Not the bar nor the bar tender either.
Where your logic really applies, is with pharmaceutical companies...
They push pills and "medications" with dire side effects... the percentages of these side effects, the chances of succumbing complications with these "medications" should be published and made aware at the doctors offices that your chances of developing mania, organ damage, etc are x%
The whole notion of nanny state protections, combined with a sue happy society, is disturbing.
This sounds like an excellent argument to be made in support of a pre-answer motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim rather than in support of a near-blanket prohibition on lawsuits against a particular industry that no other manufacturer gets.
So, a manufacturer absolutely cannot be held liable if they manufacture a product for an intended use and it is used in some other manner? This is some cutting edge legal precedent that flies in the face of over a century of jurisprudence. Manufacturers rejoice!
Moreover, gun manufacturers get a free pass even if they intend for their weapons to be used to kill children and design and market their weapons to further their intent.
"if they intend for their weapons to be used to kill children"
I REALLY hope you are trying to be sarcastic!
If NOT, If you ever apply for a gun you should be denied for mental instability reasons.
The law absolves gun manufacturers from liability except from manufacturing and design defects, unlike every other industry.
There are two possibilities: (1) gun manufacturers have no liability a matter of law, so they have nothing to worry about in Court and this statute is superfluous; or (2) gun manufacturers might have some liability and the statute shields them from liability, unlike every other industry. Which is it?
"]The law absolves gun manufacturers from liability except from manufacturing and design defects, unlike every other industry.
Not sure what you are trying to say.
It HAS been pointed out that if you start a fire accidental or even on purpose, the match MANUFACTURER will NOT be sued.
If you kill someone with a car the maker is NOT responsible.etc., etc., etc.
Firestone went out of business because the made a bad tire (I believe it was NOT intentional and they did OT know the tire was bad.) NOT because some drunk killed someone with Firestone tires on is car.
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.
