Current federal law explicitly protects the manufacturers of firearms from being sued because their products were used to commit crimes including manslaughter and murder. It was recently in the news that removing this protection is being proposed. Just what exactly is it being proposed that gun manufacturers be held liable for? I don’t see how it could be simply making and selling guns in the first place, that would amount to a de facto ban of something not illegal by statute.
Because guns are sentient, deeply evil beings who live to commit murder and general mayhem.
(If liberals actually believed the previous sentence, there wouldn’t be any significant change from their current rhetoric.)
Since you two are speaking for both sides, is there any reason for people with their own opinions on the subject to bother chiming in?
Are there any other cases where intentional misuse of the product falls on the original source/manufacturer? Like you can sue car companies if something is defective, but not if someone intentionally hits a person. The best example I can think of is the (rare) cases where a bar is found liable for not cutting off someone who later has a DUI, and even that is not the best analogy.
Guns can and should be made safer. There’s currently no incentive for manufacturers to make guns harder for children to operate, for instance. Removing liability protection would be an incentive.
Manufacturers should be aware if who is buying their product in bulk. Straw purchasers sometimes buy directly from manufacturers and then sell to people that shouldn’t or can’t purchase legally.
So called “ghost guns” or “kit guns” are able to circumvent the laws because they are not fully assembled and are missing a key part, such as a firing pin, and are thus not considered real guns. When it’s fairly easy to assemble the gun and the missing piece can be bought separately or even manufactured at home. And there is no way to identify and trace them.
This has more to do with the reasons that people want guns which basically require them to be reliable and ready to use. Unless why people are buying guns change most of the “safety improvements” will never be looked for by the buyers.
This is like allowing liquor producers to be sued because they sold to a liquor store that sold to minors or a bar that routinely over serves people. Why don’t we see these same proposals for any other industry?
I’m uncertain what this has to do with gun violence or suing the manufacturer. Are you going to try and find who sold the ghost gun and go after them? Isn’t the whole point that it’s not possible. People can 3d print guns are you going to sue the printer manufacturers?
All firearms come with trigger locks, many also have internal locking devices that require a key, and many also come with locking cases. Some have a magazine disconnect feature that renders the weapon inoperable if the magazine is removed even if there is a round in the chamber. It is quite easy to make all current firearms safe from children but if some dip shit doesn’t do that how is it the manufacturers fault?
Very few manufacturers sell firearms directly. They typically sell to distributors.who then sell to federally licensed dealers. The handful of manufacturers who do sell only sell to FFL dealers, cutting out the distributor middleman. Your thought that gun makers are selling directly to individuals is completely incorrect.
We don’t have a +1 feature, but yeah, this.
Oh yeah, I saw that episode:
?? I don’t get that
No. All firearms have trigger locks available, but it is not a standard feature.
It’s also quite easy to remove the dipshit from the equation and make guns child proof right out of the box.
Yes, that is how it’s supposed to work but there is nothing that makes sure that the gun trail from manufacturers to sellers to purchasers is above board. Where is the accountability? If a liquor store owner knowingly sells to a guy who then goes outside and sells to minors that liquor store is liable. There is no such protection against gun manufacturers doing the same thing.
Quite true.
As to the question in the OP, the philosophical basis for seeking this kind of liability has been discussed in countless other threads and while I type this someone nay come up with some version of this: “Unlike cars or alcohol or axes or (whatever), guns are made to hurt and kill. So they should NOT be made easy to operate!”
“knowingly”
[quote=“mikecurtis, post:5, topic:939719, full:true”].
[/quote]
I’m still working my way through this page but if I’m not misreading it so far, it would seem to be an example of what I was asking about: would liability mean suing gun manufacturers simply for selling guns?
First, it admits that there are many things NOT covered by the protection act-
“There are six exceptions to the blanket civil immunity provided by the PLCAA:”
-which would seem to cover all reasonable misconduct: selling defective guns, breaking the law, reckless practices, etc.
The page then goes on to cite several challenges to the law, one of which was City of New York v. Beretta (2008), which is briefly described as
“The legal issue presented was whether New York’s public nuisance statute—a statute which applies generally to any public nuisance—was “applicable to the sale or marketing” of firearms.”
If that isn’t suing over guns being guns, I’m not sure what is. Yet the page seems to imply that the failure of this suit was a terrible loss for justice and public safety.
I’ve bought several types on guns in several states they all came with trigger locks. Of course, I’ve never put the trigger locks on the gun so it wouldn’t really matter if they didn’t come in the box.
How do you propose to do this?
Your analogy would involve the gun dealer being sued not Jim Beam. I think you will find most gun people will be happy to prosecute the gun dealer who knowingly sells to straw buyers.
I don’t think so. Guns are an inherently dangerous product, and there’s no way to make them completely safe. But there are ways to mitigate that danger.
There are about 35,000 gun related fatalities in America every year. And about twice that many injuries. Most of those are from intentional misuse. But approximately 5% of those deaths and injuries are accidental. While that’s not a huge number, most of those are completely preventable with small changes to the way guns are manufactured and sold. Holding the manufacturer liable is one way to make them safer.
I don’t propose how to do this. I’m answering Lumpy’s question about how a manufacturer could be liable. But since you gave such a good example…make trigger locks an intrinsic part of the gun so people like you don’t have the opportunity to not use them.
And what of the manufacturers who turn a blind eye to shady dealers. Or who intentionally sell to countries who don’t have the protections in place the US does knowing full well that some of those guns will make it into the hands of criminals in this country.
How can a gun be made safer so that a kid cant shoot it but the right adult can?
Usually, with a pistol the safety is on, and it is not obvious how to disengage it.
Absolutely and all the ATF has to do is define “dealer”. But no,manufacturers are not aware, and no “Straw purchasers sometimes buy directly from manufacturers” because in order to buy direct you have to be a registered FFL dealer.
Ghost guns so far have not be a crime issue, mainly as they are 90% for AR15 close and rifles of all sorts are used in a tiny number of crimes. In any case, the gun companies hate them also.
No, the only real reason to allow people to sue gun companies is to show a really horrific school shooting or something and get a horrified jury to get angry and give a huge $$ judgement to put the gun company out of business, even tho it isnt their fault at all. That’s the only purpose.
Now if the gun it truly defective you can sue. They arent immune for that. They are only immune for suits that would blame the manufacturers for someone using the product in a criminal manner. Should Ford be liable as some nutso drove his Ford into a crowd of people? Should ACME be liable as some nut built a bomb out of their fertilizer?
Thanks for your contribution to this Great Debate.
Please inform us.
If a gun is found at a crime scene the police or ATF can go to the Manufacturer and ask “where did you sell this” and the answer had better be “to a registered FFL dealer, a police dept or the military” because if the answer is “a private individual” the gun company is gonna be heavily fined and someone may be going to prison. I am gonna have to ask for a cite that gun companies are selling direct to criminals or other private individuals.
Do you know what a trigger lock is? They are a mechanical block that prevents the gun from being fired without being removed by a key. A cable lock like this is probably the most common. Once you have the key you remove the lock. Then you can choose not to put the lock back on. Unless you are thinking of a system where you have to turn a key each time before you pull the trigger which doesn’t help with 95+% of gun deaths or injuries and would make normal use of a gun for hunt of defense much more difficult.
Right what about liquor manufacturers that sell to store ls that have higher volumes due to selling to drunks or children?
Are you proposing a ban on international trade unless countries adopt law you prefer or are you looking to sue companies to act legally and don’t have full knowledge of every action that occurs in foreign countries?
Most gun safety recommendations I hear amount to making it impossible to access a gun in less than a minute. The problem is as mentioned upthread about that being incompatible with gun owners’ needs and wants. When you unexpectedly need a gun you need it NOW.
The 1973 movie adaptation of “The Three Musketeers” has a scene that I wish a video clip was available of: When Cardinal Richelieu’s guards break into M. Bonacieux’s home in the middle of the night to arrest him, he hurriedly snatches an unloaded pistol off his nightstand and begins the laborious process of loading powder, patch and ball. Naturally he doesn’t get anywhere near done before he’s restrained.