I don’t think you are looking at the right thing.
All those permits that you need to do any of that stuff? They are rarely issued.
So by all appearances, these cases are frivolous but you still support the right to bring these frivolous cases just in case? I would think you would have to identify at least one case that was not frivolous (or state law that was not exposing firearms to extra liability that virtually no other product has).
I think people get caught up on the notion that the firearms industry is being given some sort of special immunity that it oughtn’t have.
No. I didn’t say that.
We already have laws in place that make it illegal for criminals to own guns and yet they own guns. Its not for a lack of trying that we cannot prevent crimianls from getting their hands on guns, is it? What law do you propose will prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns?
First, there’s a short and simple answer to that, whether you like to hear it or not: the same laws that exist in all other civilized countries.
The laws that eventually create a culture shift where buying a gun is a serious, unusual, and very well vetted transaction that few people do, and only for good and valid reason, instead of a fun thing that everybody does all the time. And where such a weapon, once possessed, is under strict regulations concerning transportation and storage, instead of being carried around on the street like a cell phone or a toy.
This doesn’t address the questions of how long it would take such laws to permeate the gun culture, or how to accomplish a more rational re-interpretation of the 2nd Amendment than Heller or its very existence, but the path to ending rampant gun violence is clear enough if there is the will.
And the issue of “oh, my, there are so many guns now, there’s no point in trying to control them” is a red herring, like the real estate dilemma of “If only I had bought that house 10 years ago, it’s too late now” – which we hear about every 10 years, decade after decade. Point being that every day and every year people are buying more guns under the present regime, more deadly guns are being created all the time, and no incentives whatsoever exist to reduce their numbers, so while you sit there asserting that it’s too late, it’s a done deal, the vast arsenal of guns just gets more and more deadly.
And finally, you need to rid yourself of the ridiculous notion, much beloved by the NRA, that people fall neatly and permanently into the categories of “law-abiding” (who can do no wrong, ever) and “criminals” – “good guys” and “bad guys”, like the black and white pieces on a chessboard. Like the gun owner who says “why shouldn’t I have a high-capacity magazine and a semi-automatic – it will never be used to do anything criminal.” Like the mother of the Newtown shooter who might have said, “why shouldn’t my son have a Bushmaster XM15 and a Glock pistol, so that we as law-abiding gun owners can go to a shooting range and bond as mother and son? He’ll never do anything bad with them.” Like the “law abiding gun owner” who gets fired from his job, goes broke, and finds out that his wife has been cheating on him, and suddenly isn’t so “law abiding” any more.
You know what to do (“you” collectively). But you won’t, because you love your guns, and it’s much easier to dispute and deny the hard facts than it is to gather the will to do anything.
But other countries don’t have a 2nd amendment interpreted as it is in the US. You can’t just take a right that is established in the constituent and say you want to make exercising that right “unusual” and only done for “good and valid reason”. There is no right to an abortion in the text of the constitution, but the SCOTUS has interpreted there to be a right to one. Would you accept putting those constraints on abortions?
Forget for a minute that you don’t like the 2nd amendment. I don’t like it either. But it’s there, and the SCOTUS has said it protects a personal right to own guns. Given that, any law that would make ownership “unusual” would be struck down as an unreasonable constraint on the right to own guns, as it would be for laws doing same to any other right the citizens have.
I agree, John, as you will note in my third paragraph. I’m trying to take a broader view of the subject, instead of assuming that the Heller ruling is forever, and even some of this Court’s subsequent rulings have been encouraging. It isn’t actually unrealistic if you consider the views of some constitutional scholars who believe Heller is a gross misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment’s intent that can and should and will eventually be overturned, as some other bad rulings have been in the past.
Yes, this is what I believe.
Perhaps I am less sanguine than you on the subject, but I think we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment before we can achieve the kind of situation we see in other countries. When you have a right explicitly listed in the constitution, I don’t see how you get to a place where laws can be made that make exercising that right “unusual”.
Yes, vaccines are different than guns. Firearms are protected as an enumerated fundamental constitutional right. Vaccines are not. You have no right to a vaccine.
You keep saying that maybe the industries would have survived without the protections. But here is an article in the New England Journal of Medicine that says otherwise:
Unless you have other contrary evidence, the express reason for the creation of the vaccine maker protections was because of the fear of certain vaccines no longer being manufactured. This claim is not only falsifiable, it’s the clear and stated reason for the protection.
Yes, some industries survive, but others do not. Some companies survive, and others do not. I mentioned this in the other thread. What comes to mind is Google (Youtube). When Google’s defense won against the lawsuit brought by Viacom, it was held that internet companies, even if they know they are hosting infringing material, are immune from copyright liability if they promptly remove works at a rights-holder’s request. But Google is huge. Think of another company that did something similar, Veoh. Veoh also did video sharing, but was much smaller. Here is a history of lawsuits against Veoh, all of which they prevailed, at great legal cost:
Google won their defense in June of 2010.
Nearly all lawsuits have either been dismissed, or overturned upon appeal in favor of defendants. The theories of liability posed by plaintiffs have been novel, and stupid. Have you looked at the history of lawsuits prior to the PLCAA to aid in your evaluation?
There have been claims that ranged from bullets being too lethal (that’s their purpose), to the very manufacture of firearms as a public nuisance. Municipalities have sued because gun makers distribute product to regions with more permissive gun laws where the guns wind up in more restrictive municipalities - and allege that is the fault of the gun maker. Yes these are novel claims, and stupid. Congress, not the NRA, determined that these suits were without merit. But it wasn’t just congress - 30ish states also passed their own versions of the PLCAA prior to the PLCAA being passed. The NRA as a boogeyman is absurd. These laws pass because the legislators of the elected body realize that these types of lawsuits are a giant waste.
But you say that the gun industry shouldn’t enjoy unique protection. I have demonstrated that their protection is not unique already with the vaccine protection. Another group that enjoys statutory immunity are EMS workers. Take a look at a google search with the terms “immunity from civil liability” and a host of state laws comes up that details all the different ways civil immunity is granted. Even the states themselves are civily immune in many cases. Your claim that the gun industry is alone in its protection is refuted.
There have been many creative legal thinkers that have attempted this type of litigation, and after great legal cost, all but one (which has not served as precedential) have failed. You think there may be a viable claim, but neither you, or anyone else, has demonstrated one. I’m going to say if you support these lawsuits that will not win, and expect them to be dismissed, you are supporting frivalous lawsuits and that is a bad thing.
I can’t find the post, but you stated that the industry survived for so long without the protections, why do they need them, or something to that effect. The difference is prior to the 1990s, claims took the form of traditional personal injury claims from an individual against an individual.
Essentially, protection was necessary because the nature of the litigation changed.
What I don’t get is how as a libertarian could you support the repeal of the 2nd? The right to self defense and arms for that purpose are key to libertarian philosophy.
It may be key to Libertarian philosophy, but not to libertarian philosophy.
If you mean it is difficult to own a gun in NYC then that’s what you should say.
That is what I read. Those permits seems fairly straightforward and sensible.
When you say rarely issued what do you mean? what numbers do you base that on?
Protection was necessary for vaccines and EMS workers, presumably, because without it people might not get vaccines and emergency health care.
Protection was necessary for the gun industry because without it, there was a possibility of financial hardship for gun manufacturers and sellers. Gun prices may have gone up. It’s even possible that the gun industry might have been forced to make major changes – perhaps exercising a lot of effort in helping prevent their products from ending up in the wrong hands; shifting some profits towards helping victims of gun crime and preventing crimes in the first place; increasing gun safety; etc. Perhaps there would even be the possibility of some gun companies going out of business due to litigation (though, still, this seems unlikely considering the overwhelming profitability and success of fossil fuel and auto industries which are targeted by activists as much or than gun companies). This could change the industry, but with so many Americans willing to pay thousands of dollars for new firearms, it seems like there’d be nigh-zero chance that it would be impossible to make a profit from making and selling guns.
Those two outcomes seem incredibly different in character. I see something close to a compelling public interest in preventing the first, I see nothing close to a compelling public interest in preventing the second, even in the absolute worst case (which I still see as incredibly unlikely, considering the sky-high demand for guns). I don’t believe Congress (and states that enacted similar protections) were motivated by anything more than an interest in financially helping the gun industry (and for any doomsayers among them, ensuring that the gun industry stays viable). Maybe they think that’s a good thing – that this industry deserves legislation that helps their bottom line – I don’t. I think the courts are able to deal with frivolous lawsuits, and I see no compelling public interest in providing special protections for them.
So you think protection for a certain industry is okay…if you agree with it. Unfortunately for you, Congress in their infinite wisdom along with the majority of states disagrees with you.
If you think gun makers could survive similar attacks that the auto industry or oil industry, you are ignorant of the magnitude of difference between the industries. The gun industry does about $13B in revenues. By contrast, the largest oil industry companies do about $5,000B. The auto industry in the US alone is over $1,000B (which excludes the largest, by my recollection was Volkswagon).
While specific stats aren’t available for gun makers, it’s estimated their profit margins are quite thin as well. It’s just seems like much of what you’ve based your evaluation on is either wrong, or incomplete.
Yep. They disagree with me. Good point – I should have recognized this earlier so I could concede that all my arguments are wrong because they disagree with me. 
So maybe they’d have to raise their prices, and/or maybe they’d become a smaller, more niche industry, and/or they’d face almost no hardship since most/all the frivolous lawsuits would be thrown out, and/or they’d have to expend more effort on safety and keeping guns out of the wrong hands.
Still don’t see how this serves the public interest, and I think the legislators and lobbyists who advocated for it were motivated by an interest in financially helping the gun industry.
As has been pointed out, several cities joined the bandwagon, and started suing also. They use your tax money in a simple effort to drive a company out of business via excessive legal fees. To them- so what if the “frivolous suit” is thrown out- they have made the gun company spend $100000 in legal fees defending it. And then another city sues and another, and another- just the legal bills alone would be insane.
If it does go to court, jurors are known to be swayed by emotion more than facts, so the gun company could get hit by a 100MM $$ award, even if they arent really liable.
What benefit would this have? How can a gun manufacturer do more to “keep guns out of the wrong hands”? They sell 100% to Police depts and sellers who are federally licensed. Why should they not be able to depend upon the ATF to properly licence and vet those sellers?
Let say GM sells a car to a state licensed car dealer, who sells the car to a licensed driver, who then gets drunk and kills a busload of kids. Would you want GM to have to pay out $100MM just because they* could *have put alcohol test locks on all their cars, but didn’t?
The law protects gun sellers as well as manufacturers, from my understanding. Heaven forbid the manufacturers and sellers of firearms (those special, fragile little snowflakes) might have to actually make efforts to try and prevent their guns from being used by criminals. That might hurt their bottom line!
They do make efforts- they sell only to Police depts and sellers who are federally licensed. What else would you expect them to do? Anyway, the lawsuits had nothing to do with any single case of a gun getting into the hands of a criminal, the cities sued as gun companies were *en masse responsible for all *gun crimes.:rolleyes::dubious:
Interesting legal theory, and perhaps it should be put to the test. I trust the courts, including juries filled with flawed humans, far more than Congress and legislatures motivated to help gun companies financially, in this particular case. I certainly don’t trust that Congress and state legislatures know better what amounts to a frivolous lawsuit when it comes to an industry they seem highly motivated to assist.
Perhaps there are features which would make guns less useful for crime, or more efforts that could be done to only sell to safe buyers, or similar. I don’t know. I just would rather see this stuff worked out in the courts, then banned altogether by legislators who routinely get down on their knees for gun lobbyists.