Acknowledged, but this one should have been moved there based on the OP alone.
Yeah, we figure that’s what your side thinks. 6 is too many also right? Hence the recall.
The problem is that your side often has some good points to make on a number of other totally separate issues, but you keep screwing your side out of power by continually coming back to this one.
No it’s called incrementalism.
“Another example would be in small changes that make way for a bigger overall change to get past unnoticed. A series of small steps toward an agenda would be less likely to be questioned than a large and swift change. An example could be the rise of gas prices, the company would only raise the price by a few cents every day, instead of a large change to a target price overnight. More people would notice and dispute a dramatic, 100% increase overnight, while a 100% increase over a span of a week would less likely be even noticed, let alone argued. This can be applied in many different ways, such as, economics, politics, a person’s appearance, or laws.”
Read all about it:
Agreed. The OP could have been summed up with “WE WIN! WE WIN! NEENER NEENER NEENER! GUNS ROCK!”
I don’t agree. If you want to continue the discussion, please start an ATMB thread.
OK, I think a little lesson might be in order here. This is civil law, so I should say at the outset that it’s not my cuppa tea, and I welcome correction and elaboration from those that actually practice civil law for a living. But this is pretty basic stuff, so hopefully I won’t embarrass myself while trying to sound edumacational.
A civil lawsuit of this type sounds in tort. A tort is a civil wrong, kind of the civil version of a crime. It means that Joe claims Greta did something wrong to him, she breached some sort of duty of care that she owed him, and as a result she is damaged in some way. And now, says Joe, he wants Greta to pay him to restore him to the point he was before he got damaged.
So in order to do this, Joe must identify, clearly, a couple of things. First he must make clear what tort he’s talking about. Joe might feel, for example, that he was damaged because Greta parked in the street in front of his house instead of in front of her house. But the law doesn’t recognize that as an actionable tort. So if he sues Greta for parking in an irritating spot, the suit can be very quickly dismissed. It doesn’t matter what facts he might plead, or discover, or how strong his proof is that Greta parked there. The simple truth is that there’s no relief under the law for irritating parking habits. Joe has failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
But let’s suppose Joe is upset about something the law does recognize. What if he says that Greta damaged his property with her car?
Now we have a different story. Damage to your property is certain the kind of claim that the law can address. So the lawsuit can’t simply be dismissed as it was above.
The next thing Joe has to do is explain how Greta damaged the property: what facts does he claim actually happened that, if believed, would prove that she damaged his property?
Suppose Joe is still rankled about the parking issue, and the facts he alleges are simply that by parking her car in front of his house, Greta damages the value of his house by taking away valuable parking space on the public street.
If that’s all he alleges, then the suit can be dismissed as well, because the judge can see that a trial is not needed. A trial, after all, is the forum for determining what actually happened: what set of facts is the truth. In this case, though, we can see that even if there was a trial, and Joe proved as true every single fact he alleged, that still wouldn’t be enough to make Greta liable. The law allows her to park her car on the street. Joe doesn’t claim her car is illegal in some way. So there’s no need for a trial. The judge can say, in effect, “A trial would be a waste of time, because even if Joe proves everything he says in his complaint, he still wouldn’t win.” So the judge can enter summary judgement for Greta.
But now let’s imagine that Joe actually has something more substantial. He alleges that when Greta parks there, oil and coolant fluid from her car leak out, stream across the gravel, and leach on to his lawn, killing his roses.
This is the kind of property damage the law is prepared to address. So Joe has identified a valid tort, and has alleged facts that, if true, would allow a court to find in his favor.
So this kind of claim can’t be immediately dismissed. At a minimum, the case can proceed to the point of allowing discovery. Joe is permitted to ask Greta questions, either written or under oath, live, in an effort to develop proof of his claims. (Note that Greta can’t “take the fifth,” and avoid answering – while she can avoid answering if her answer would make her criminally liable for something, her silence can be used against her at this civil trial.) In turn, Greta is also allowed to ask Joe questions the same way.
At the end of discovery, Joe must be able to show that he has evidence to present at trial. It’s possible that he doesn’t; his only evidence might be “Well, what else could have killed those roses?” In that event, at that stage the judge could again be asked to enter summary judgement on Greta’s behalf.
But if he has evidence to present that, if believed, would allow the court to find in his favor, the case must go to trial. The judge cannot decide on his own that the evidence isn’t all that strong, and a jury probably wouldn’t believe it – that’s not his job. And as long as there’s some, even weak, evidence for the claim, the jury is allowed to credit it.
Sorry for the long digression, but that’s how the process works.
Now let’s talk guns.
Prior to the passage of limiting legislation, one tactic used against gun manufacturers was claiming that they were liable for defective products – after all, they made a product that when it was used, had killed a person.
That’s the kind of claim that gets all the way to trial. And it’s the kind of claim that a jury disposed to dislike guns can use to hold a manufacturer liable.
See the problem?
There are two possible answers, turning on whether the fake retailer has a valid federal firearms license. If he does, then he’s a real retailer, and the manufacturer doesn’t have any duty to do any more “due diligence.”
If the fake retailer does not have a valid federal firearms license, then the manufacturer can be sued, and the current protective law does not apply.
Because the store is in the business of selling things, and has a process set up to handle the collection of sales tax in bulk. Can you name any case in which a private seller, not a person in the business of selling, but a private individual, is required to collect the sales tax?
Excellent summation of the civil suit process, Bricker. I’m sure I’m not the only person here who benefitted from reading it. Thanks.
Excellent work here, Bricker.
I note that Lamar Mundane hasn’t showed back up to respond.
I’m on the fence about this one. I agree that recalls shouldn’t be done any time a vote goes the wrong way.
However, this is Colorado, and these politicians were actually pushing for harsh gun control measures. It’s hard to argue they didn’t get what was coming to them. They were obviously very out of touch with their constituents.
Hopefully this will serve as a warning to others.
Strict gun control has never been put into place in this nation, for two reasons. First, most things that could be considered “strict gun control” are probably prohibited by the Second Amendment. Second, and perhaps even more significantly, our federal system means that no gun control measure can be implemented over anything more than a relatively small geographical area, with few border controls to adjacent areas not subject to the law. A gun control law in the District of Columbia, for instance, has little effect on disarming criminals, because they can easily go to Virginia or Maryland, buy guns there, and bring them back to DC.
By contrast, if we look at places in the world that do have strict gun control laws, such as the UK, we find that they all have less-armed criminals, and are all safer than the US. If one is to argue that guns make people safer, or that gun control laws don’t disarm criminals, one must present a very good explanation for how such places work.
Bricker, thank you for the lesson… But you do agree, do you not, that Joe is allowed to sue Greta for parking in his spot? Even if the situation is such that the judge can dismiss the case instantly, he’s still allowed to make the attempt, right?
I may be going against the prevailing current but I think the recall process is exactly how this circumstance should have been handled by Colorado voters to keep their representatives responsive.
If my representative votes against my interests I want him out of office ASAP. But that only happens if enough voters feel the same and are willing to sign petitions and then vote the politician out.
Despite strong passions on the part of the pro-recall side they simply were not able to meet the requirements to have all the politicians they wished to recall be forced to defend themselves in a recall election. It those cases the process worked. Not enough voters were sufficiently outraged to sign the petitions and force the vote.
But two other politicians were forced to face the voters and lost. That is another good result. Politicians should be the servants of the people and represent the interests of the people. Enough voters felt that their representatives in government were not doing their job and kicked them out in the most expeditious manner possible.
I view recall as the effective response to such a political issue. Impeachment should be reserved largely for criminal issues where a trial to determine the facts is warranted.
What would you consider reasonable ones, then? :dubious:
Yes. The purpose of my extended description was to show that different types of completely unfeasible cases get dismissed at different points in the litigation process.
In the current situation, you’re allowed to sue a gun manufacturer - you can make the attempt, just as Joe can.
And just as Greta can point out that Joe has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, so, too, will the gun manufacturer. So under the current law, you can sue and so can Joe. Both of you will have your cases dismissed when your opponent answers your suit by saying, “This claim doesn’t exist, by law.”
Yes, that is quite a shocker.
To be fair, he doesn’t appear to have posted anything since the post that Bricker quite handily refuted. Hopefully when he does re-appear on the boards, he makes it a point to acknowledge his error.
So, if there were no specific law at all on the matter of lawsuits against gun manufacturers (neither the federal law, nor the law the Colorado legislators tried to pass), what would be the status of suits against gun manufacturers? Would it be any different from the status if the federal law did not exist?
One example is registration.
Although I’m strongly opposed to it, debates on registration to it can be held with reasonable people who disagree. It’s possible for a reasonable politician to put forth proposals for universal registration without intending to be “harsh” gun control that is intended to ban all guns or put gun shops out of business.
But some of the proposals in Colorado were certainly not reasonable.
From the link in the OP:
This is certainly a “harsh” gun control measure, as I originally worded it. Holding gun shops legally responsible for the illegal use of their legal products is just going way too far. Do you disagree?
Cite? Crime rates have been steadily rising in the UK since the firearms act of 1997. As I recall the violent crime rate is actually higher than ours when calculated using U.S FBI metrics.
So, there’s *nothing *you would actually support. Thanks for the confirmation.
No, it’s really *not *possible. You know what happens whenever any proposal at all is offered.
Yes, because using “they’re legal” as a *premise *is evading the question. They fall under the “unreasonably dangerous” definition in product liability law, pretty plainly, except for the bit about their being actually *intended *to be dangerous. This law wouldn’t even have brought guns to parity with other products in their illegality. Is an attempt to make sure it is understood that gun rights are constrained in the Constitution unreasonable?
What is *harsh *is tens of thousands of people killed every year in this country alone. To hear that problem dismissed with “unreasonable” and other, typically juvenile, invective is mystifying and saddening.
So you would divide society into two camps, those who have life sentences and those who should have guns?
It is definitely in societies best interest to prevent an abusive ex-spouse from having a gun, but there is no way we can lock all of them up forever (prisons are expensive and taxes are unpopular). Note: we aren’t talking about a career criminal who will go out and buy one on the black market, just some asshole who gets so upset when he sees his ex with another man that in a fit of passion that he decides to get his gun and pay her a visit to show her the error of her ways.
Similarly it is in societies best interest to keep someone who is in danger of having violent psychotic episodes away from guns. But we can’t put all of them in institutions for life (particularly since the budget for such institutions has been gutted by the right). Again this isn’t someone who is going to have the wherewithal to get a black market gun, but if he had one on hand and was off his meds this could be a bad situation.
I personally would rather that neither of these people have easy access to a gun, but YMMV.