# Protecting U.S. gun manufacturers from lawsuits, good or bad? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 21, 2005, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/protecting-u-s-gun-manufacturers-from-lawsuits-good-or-bad/327189 "2005-10-21T02:25:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/protecting-u-s-gun-manufacturers-from-lawsuits-good-or-bad/327189/81 "2005-10-21T21:10:19Z")
I can see how each of us could read that clause and come to different conclusions. I do not see my hypothetical being covered. And yes, if it could be _proven_ that such was the case, that they intentionally marketed with that demographic in mind (although did not meet the standard of actually aiding and abetting sale to an unqualified person) then they should be held liable. Yes, I would hold the same to tobacco if they advertised in media dedicated to children (I do not think Joe was, BTW). And no, I do not think that the case can be made. Which is why I think this law is unneeded. Rather than unjust. But it is potentially unjust. As to changes in behaviors … yes, sometimes companies act more responsibly in order to avoid potential lawsuits. I do not se that as bad per se. I see out of control lawsuits as a problem, but not more so for the gun industry than for me or for a host of other industries. Globally fix the system, in the least intrusive ways possible, but not just for your own pet interests. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/protecting-u-s-gun-manufacturers-from-lawsuits-good-or-bad/327189/82 "2005-10-21T21:10:19Z")
I can see how each of us could read that clause and come to different conclusions. I do not see my hypothetical being covered. And yes, if it could be _proven_ that such was the case, that they intentionally marketed with that demographic in mind (although did not meet the standard of actually aiding and abetting sale to an unqualified person) then they should be held liable. Yes, I would hold the same to tobacco if they advertised in media dedicated to children (I do not think Joe was, BTW). And no, I do not think that the case can be made. Which is why I think this law is unneeded. Rather than unjust. But it is potentially unjust. As to changes in behaviors … yes, sometimes companies act more responsibly in order to avoid potential lawsuits. I do not se that as bad per se. I see out of control lawsuits as a problem, but not more so for the gun industry than for me or for a host of other industries. Globally fix the system, in the least intrusive ways possible, but not just for your own pet interests. ---
**Author:** ![justwannano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7ab992/32.png) [@justwannano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justwannano)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/protecting-u-s-gun-manufacturers-from-lawsuits-good-or-bad/327189/83 "2005-10-21T21:13:10Z")
[QUOTE=DSeid] **ExTank** and **E-Sabbath** did you even bother to READ my post?Now, tell me how the case I hypothesized about is a result of a defective product or an illegal act? Is it illegal to advertise a product in a manner that highlights its use in crime or to intentionally design a product with that use in mind? Mind you, I am _not_ saying that anyone has. But by analogy to the tobacco suits, a _successful_ suit would require that such be _proven_. (Who’d have thunk tobacco would so stupid as to leave a paper trail behind? EEEdiots.) Such actions, which would result in criminal use of the product, _if_ proven, would be protected from civil liability under this law. Nice to know that people who claim to love individual rights so much are so quick to limit them with Federal mandates when it suits their agendas. Quote So is it OK for your neighbor to sue you because you might have illegal drugs in your home? You are a doctor who makes it possible for people to get drugs after all. The reasoning just don’t make sense. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/protecting-u-s-gun-manufacturers-from-lawsuits-good-or-bad/327189/84 "2005-10-21T21:19:41Z")
Is it okay to categorically forbid him from sueing me, or any doctor, without knowing whether or not any of us actually are, or might in the future, actually be dealing in drugs from our homes? That’s the analogy. Should I have that protection? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/protecting-u-s-gun-manufacturers-from-lawsuits-good-or-bad/327189/85 "2005-10-21T21:26:42Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Which is why I think this law is unneeded. Rather than unjust. But it is potentially unjust. OK. Give me an actual set of facts that (a) should give rise to a cause of action, but (b) this law would prohibit as a cause of action. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/protecting-u-s-gun-manufacturers-from-lawsuits-good-or-bad/327189/86 "2005-10-21T21:42:02Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > I don’t know. I think it’s a heck of a pressure tactic, but I’ve not found a case yet where someone has said it publically. It sure _looks_ like it, though. [Oh! How soon they forget!](http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/ls474.htm) **For those too lazy, stupid, or blinkered by hate and fear to actually click on the link and have their bubble burst:** Then Secretary of Housing and Urban Andrew Cuomo, as point-man for the Clinton Administration, offered firearms manufacturer Smith & Wesson immunity from any further lawsuit if it pledged, as a company, to work tirelessly to support and uphold the tenets of the assault weapons ban, and turn in to the industy watchdog for them. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/protecting-u-s-gun-manufacturers-from-lawsuits-good-or-bad/327189/87 "2005-10-21T21:52:56Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > **ExTank** and **E-Sabbath** did you even bother to READ my post? I tried, but I had to stop 'less the urge to gouge out my brain through my eyeballs with a dull knife become overwhelming. > [@DSeid](#): > > Now, tell me how the case I hypothesized about is a result of a defective product or an illegal act? Is it illegal to advertise a product in a manner that highlights its use in crime or to intentionally design a product with that use in mind? Mind you, I am _not_ saying that anyone has. But by analogy to the tobacco suits, a _successful_ suit would require that such be _proven_. (Who’d have thunk tobacco would so stupid as to leave a paper trail behind? EEEdiots.) Such actions, which would result in criminal use of the product, _if_ proven, would be protected from civil liability under this law. **Again:** read the legislation. It provides for the following: > [@](#): > > SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON BRINGING OF QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTIONS IN FEDERAL OR STATE COURT. > > (a) In General- A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court. > > (b) Dismissal of Pending Actions- A qualified civil liability action that is pending on the date of enactment of this Act shall be immediately dismissed by the court in which the action was brought or is currently pending. It defines a “Qualified Civil Liability Action” as thus: > [@](#): > > (5) QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTION- > > (A) IN GENERAL- The term `qualified civil liability action’ means a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief’ resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include– _ **!!!NOTE THE LAST FOUR WORDS!!!** _ Nice to know that people who claim to love individual rights so much are so quick to limit them with Federal mandates when it suits their agendas. Oh, entertainingly enough, in the link about the devasting effects of lawsuits cited by **E-Sabbath** is this devasting effectGosh. How. Awful. :rolleyes: [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/protecting-u-s-gun-manufacturers-from-lawsuits-good-or-bad/327189/88 "2005-10-21T22:00:23Z")
**Bricker** , I just gave a potential scenerio of facts. Do I know those are actual facts? No, and I doubt they are. But that is why the law is unneeded. Do I think that it is impossible for those to be or to ever be the facts? No. And if it was or ever did occur the law would then be unjust. Hey, Clinton’s administration tried to do some hardball political dealing and pressure tactics. What a surprise. _Of course_ some are motivated by trying to pressure the industry to behave in ways that they consider more responsible. Of course some would love to see the industry phase out of production of cheaper concealable handguns that they percieve increase gun violence rates. (The inaccuracy or accuracy of that perception is immaterial here.) And of course sometimes the industry will cave if caving is easy and they are afraid they could lose. But if they are not doing something like I described then they would be unlikely to lose in court. The tactics would only work if industry honchos have no spine. Or acting “responsibly” is that easy. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/protecting-u-s-gun-manufacturers-from-lawsuits-good-or-bad/327189/89 "2005-10-21T22:03:47Z")
Last four words: > [@](#): > > …but shall not include– That means that what follows are NOT “Qualified Civil Liability Action(s)”… > [@](#): > > (i) an action brought against a transferor convicted under section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code, or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so convicted; > > (ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se; > > (iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, including– > > (I) any case in which the manufacturer or seller knowingly made any false entry in, or failed to make appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under Federal or State law with respect to the qualified product, or aided, abetted, or conspired with any person in making any false or fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of a qualified product; or > > (II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code; > > (iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product; > > (v) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or > > (vi) and action or proceeding commenced by the Attorney General to enforce the provisions of chapter 44 of title 18 or chapter 53 of title 26, United States Code. …and thus these do NOT receive the benefit of protection under the umbreall of the act. What it does is remove the arguments out of the hands of civil juries (who may be swayed by emotional arguments to find a “preponderance of evidence” against a firearms manufacturer) and ridiculous real and punitive damage awards _until **after** said manufacturers have been found guilty in a court of law._ Your tobacco analogy falls flat on its face. The tobaco industry deliberately altered their products with chemicals to enhance the addiction, and then concealed the fact that they did so. I don’t believe any firearms manufacturer has somehow invented a gun that makes a person a criminal just by possessing it (even if their is a damned strong thread of that theme in _this_ thread). ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/protecting-u-s-gun-manufacturers-from-lawsuits-good-or-bad/327189/90 "2005-10-21T22:10:16Z")
So explain to me please how my hypothetical is exempt from this law? Presuming you still have eyeballs. Given that dull knives are not yet banned… ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/protecting-u-s-gun-manufacturers-from-lawsuits-good-or-bad/327189/91 "2005-10-21T22:10:58Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > But if they are not doing something like I described then they would be unlikely to lose in court. The tactics would only work if industry honchos have no spine. Or acting “responsibly” is that easy. Or don’t want to spend milions of dollars in legal fees and court costs proving to every jumped-up “Hizzoner-the-Mayor” with delusions of Governorhood that they do, in fact, legally manufacture, market, an sell a legal product, and are in no way responsible for the actions of third parties beyond their control. Nice tactic, though. Did you expect me to grab my balls in a testosterone-induced kill-frenzy and blast away at my computer screen to “make the idiots just STOP!” with your so-unsubtle appeal to emotion? Like most predators, the Clinton Administration singled out Smith & Wesson as “the weakest of the herd” and circled S &W like sharks scenting blood to pounce upon them with the threat of _federal_ lawsuits in order to make them cave. Since S & W was then owned by a British concern, I suppose the move made sense to its then-President/CEO. But S &W paid more in lost business than if it had fought the suits. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/protecting-u-s-gun-manufacturers-from-lawsuits-good-or-bad/327189/92 "2005-10-21T22:12:27Z")
The tobacco analogy is merely to show the level of proof required to win in court. I do not believe that such doable for the gun industry. Which _again_ is why the law is not needed. I know, it is hard to read without eyeballs, but there are programs that do voice you know. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/protecting-u-s-gun-manufacturers-from-lawsuits-good-or-bad/327189/93 "2005-10-21T22:14:22Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > So explain to me please how my hypothetical is exempt from this law? No. Read the legislation. And then go live in your fantasy-world of E-vil gun lobbies. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/protecting-u-s-gun-manufacturers-from-lawsuits-good-or-bad/327189/94 "2005-10-21T22:16:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > OK. Give me an actual set of facts that (a) should give rise to a cause of action, but (b) this law would prohibit as a cause of action. ON second thought, **DSeid** , I yield the floor to my esteemed colleague from the great state of Virginia, and until you can meet his simple challenge, I’m through talkin’ to ya. ---
**Author:** ![Campion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@Campion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Campion)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/protecting-u-s-gun-manufacturers-from-lawsuits-good-or-bad/327189/95 "2005-10-21T22:25:28Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > What _if_ it _was_ proven that a manufacturer or distributer _knowingly_ designed and marketed a product with the illegal market in mind, knowing that it would find its way there and that that would drive further sales? Should that hypothetical company be protected? This law says yes. That is nuts. Do you know for sure that there is not any company now or in the future that has or will do that at any time? This law says that they can without fear of civil suit. Should they be allowed to? **DSeid** , could you confirm that the quoted text above is the hypothetical set of facts to which you refer in the second quotation? > [@DSeid](#): > > So explain to me please how my hypothetical is exempt from this law? I want to make sure I understand the hypothetical you’ve posited. Thanks in advance for the clarification. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/protecting-u-s-gun-manufacturers-from-lawsuits-good-or-bad/327189/96 "2005-10-21T22:27:18Z")
Ah crossposting. And I type so slow. So while filing a suit costs little, bringing it to trial as a plaintiff costs just as much as being a defendant. Who would follow through if there is actually little chance of a win. They may bluff, but they won’t spend unless they really believe there is a likely pay-out. For tobacco there was reason to believe there would be. Not for guns. Unless you know something I do not. (I mean about that specific contention, smartalec!) BTW, here in Illinois Hizzoner is a bigger plum than Guv. But he’s not always the sharpest knife in the drawer. Again, I’d like tort reform to be able to dismiss frivilous suits on their face before trial. Perhaps some pretrial judicial review system that can dismiss the obvious ones right off. But again, the gun industry doesn’t need this anymore than the rest of us. And prejudging is an excessive approach. And again I answered the request already. So go run along home if you want to. And, btw, my fantasies are much more interesting than gun lobbies being evil. Boring. But I trust no one to do the right thing just because when there is profit to be made. If you do, well, I question who is living with a fantasy. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/protecting-u-s-gun-manufacturers-from-lawsuits-good-or-bad/327189/97 "2005-10-21T22:29:43Z")
Yes, **Campion**. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/protecting-u-s-gun-manufacturers-from-lawsuits-good-or-bad/327189/98 "2005-10-21T22:55:15Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > BTW, here in Illinois Hizzoner is a bigger plum than Guv. But he’s not always the sharpest knife in the drawer. I know. It’s why I don’t live there anymore. I was tired of The Daley Machine running my home state from Chicago. Pity. It’s actually a very pretty state down south, where I hail from. But Texas, Colorado, and Missouri have their charms, too, and I can stomach them politcally a lot better than I can Illinois. ---
**Author:** ![justwannano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7ab992/32.png) [@justwannano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justwannano)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/protecting-u-s-gun-manufacturers-from-lawsuits-good-or-bad/327189/99 "2005-10-21T22:59:59Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Is it okay to categorically forbid him from sueing me, or any doctor, without knowing whether or not any of us actually are, or might in the future, actually be dealing in drugs from our homes? That’s the analogy. Should I have that protection? Apparently you need to go back and read your own posts. You are the one that is saying that gun manufacturers are catagorically guilty. You are the one that says it is OK to sue the producer of a product because it might be used illegally even after the mfgr has relinquished control . Please note that I could have taken the position that you were guilty because you might be dealing as you have with the gun mfgrs. Please note that I did not use the possibility that after you write a subscription it is sold by the patient to someone else. Could this ever happen? Should you be liable? Just something for you to think about. ---
**Author:** ![justwannano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7ab992/32.png) [@justwannano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justwannano)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/protecting-u-s-gun-manufacturers-from-lawsuits-good-or-bad/327189/100 "2005-10-21T23:02:35Z")
Of course that should be a prescription. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/protecting-u-s-gun-manufacturers-from-lawsuits-good-or-bad/327189.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/protecting-u-s-gun-manufacturers-from-lawsuits-good-or-bad/327189.md?page=6)