No they didn’t. They have no reasonable expectation that the gun that they made, that I own, will ever be used in a crime. If I sell it to a criminal, I have committed the crime, not them.
That’s exactly right.
I posted an example in this thread where they have a reasonable expectation that the gun they were selling would be used in a crime.
So are you just ignoring the rest of my post?
What, the example where a person is buying their legal (and monitored) one gun per month? That’s not a reasonable expectation of crime. Not at all. If I go and buy 10 kegs of beer should it be assumed that I am throwing a party that will have underage drinkers? No. Presumption of innocence and all that archaic nonsense, I guess.
The rest of it where you showed that the onus of responsibility would fall on me? How does that translate to it being the responsibility of a gun manufacturer?
Oh, one other thing:
Replace the words “gun crimes” with “vehicle accidents” and “gun” with “car” and tell me where GM is taking a bath for the thousands of accidents that occur with their vehicles every year. They’re not. They expect their products to be used responsibly. If they’re not that’s hardly their fault.
Man Stops Carjacking With Hot Coffee
Well, he can’t sue the gun manufacturer anymore, but ha can always sue McDonald’s. We already know that works.
No but its reasonable to assume that you are going to either sell or give that alcohol to someone else. For alcohol this is legal but for firearms it is not.
If you think that you have no responsibility when you provide the means for a person to commit a crime that you know they will committ then I guess we will just have to disagree. I guess I just don’t see how anyone can think you bear no responsibility if a friend comes up to you and says he needs your gun to go kill someone and you give it to him.
Well here is what the City of Chicago thinks makes them responsible:
[ul]
[li]Defendant gun dealers consciously fail to take any action to prevent violations of law when Chicago residents and others make multiple purchases of guns, or otherwise purchase guns in a manner that would make it plainly foreseeable that the purchaser is not buying those weapons for himself, but instead for purposes of illegal resale.[/li][li]Defendant manufacturers and distributors knowingly oversupply or ‘saturate the market’ with their products in areas where gun control law are less restrictive, knowing that persons will illegally bring them into the jurisdictions where they are illegal and then possess or illegally resell them.[/li][li]The defendant gun manufacturers and distributors distribute quantities of their firearms through low-end retailers such as pawn shops and gun stores that are known to be frequented by criminals and gang members.[/li][/ul]
The gun manufacturers (if these allegations are true) are negligent becuase they are taking actions knowingly and for the express purpose of arming criminals. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that criminals will use guns to commit crimes. Thus the gun manufacturers have contributed to the gun crimes committed by these people by illegally and knowingly providing them with guns. Why should they not be held civily liable for their portion of responsibility for the damages that occur during these crimes?
Right, car companies are not liable becuase they don’t knowingly provide their cars to be used in crimes. I don’t understand what isn’t clear about knowingly providing something to committ a crime and unknowingly providing something to committ a crime.
Isn’t it funny how the coffee just hurt like hell like one would expect instead of nearly instantly causing him third degree burns over 16% of his body requiring a 10 day hospital stay and multiple skin grafts?
I had buried a comment on this in a question for libertarians. I’ll repeat it here:
The courts are indeed an inefficient source of redress that sometimes impose unfair and disproprtionate outcomes based on emotional appeals. They might make bad decisions and a gun manufactrer who makes and distributes gns in full compliance with extant laws can surely not be held as negligent because some fool gun owner leaves his gun unsecured or some unethical dealer looks the other way at strawman purchases. Yet giving a prejudged pass to entire industries without knowing the merits of any future particular case is an excessive response that imposes greatly upon individual rights in order to guard whole industries against possible future bad calls by the courts. A more narrow and measured response might be reasonable but this is a bad law.
Bad. It should be up to the courts to determine if a given lawsuit is frivolous or not. What if a manufacturer cuts corners and uses shoddy materials and this results in injury? What if a distributor knowingly and purposefully becomes a conduit for black market firearms?
I don’t understand how a government can just decide that no civil lawsuit can possibly have merit.
The gun/car analogy is silly. Crimes aren’t accidents. Cars don’t serve to enable criminals, making a mugging or a rape or a murder successful and easy where it would otherwise not be. Might as well equate guns and time; after all, both can kill. But even if the analogy had merit, it has little to do with subverting due process.
That makes sense. I think it’s silly to blame gun manufacturers because a mugger shot someone, but I also think it’s silly to place a particular industry above the law.
Loaded question.
They aren’t being protected from lawsuits as I see it.
They are being protected from unjust lawsuits.
In a related item.
In July this year the BATF passed a law disallowing the importation of gun barrels.
We’ve discussed this here and the only sense I can make of it is it was to complete the ban of gun parts.
This does however allow the US manufacturers to make more replacement barrels for refurbishing military weapons.
The only hitch is the US barrels are so over priced that you have to be a rich guy to be able to afford one.
This barrel ban was effective in July and the cutoff for recieving the barrels from overseas was Sept 15.
I’ve often wanted to sportsterize my 1924 Mauser.
Guess I gotta forget that.
For the last time, the gun manufacturers do not anticipate that their products will be used in a crime. They are sold initially to law-abiding citizens who are vetted by the government as to their eligibility. What happens after that is not their responsibility, nor should it be, because they sold a product in good faith that it will be used properly. They cannot and should not be held responsible because someone abused their product by committing a crime with it. It’s the same deal that every other manufacturer in the country gets, and barring negligence pertaining to an obviously defective product (i.e. one that injures you through a malfunction) they should have the same protections as every other company. Period.
As far as I can tell this is still a legit cause for redress.
Then that distributor is a criminal and should be charged accordingly. What does the manufacturer have to do with that?
They didn’t. They banned lawsuits that contended that a perfectly good and functioning firearm is not defective and a frivolous lawsuit cannot be filed for the purpose of digging for gold if it is not defective, as lawsuits of this type have been filed numerous times.
Wrong. They act as a means of escape, thus enabling criminals and making crimes far more successful than they might be.
They’re not. They’re evening the playing field.
But they are being accused of selling their guns in bad faith becuase they are selling them to people that they know will re-sell them to criminals illegally. Did you not read the list I posted from the City of Chicago’s lawsuit?
The idea that whatever happens with the gun after they sold it is not their responsibility is simply junk. A criminal with a gun is more dangerous and causes more damages than a criminal without a gun. If the gun manufactures are found to be negligently supplying their guns to those criminals why should they not be responsible for the extra damages a criminal causes with a gun? Their policies are certainly increasing the ease and amount of guns criminals can obtain. By these actions they are directly responsible for creating a dangerous situation and should be held liable for that situation. At the very least the victims should be allowed to argue their case in a court.
The idea that a company can sell products that cause extensive damage to people who do not use those products is simply wrong. There is absolutely nothing stopping gun companies from tightly controlling who they sell their guns to. The fact of the matter is that they will sell a gun to whomever they can. They simply do not care whether or not that gun ends up in the hands of a criminal or is used in a crime. Their sole goal is profit and to think that they can recklessly endanger my life without repercussions is daffy. Unfortunately thats exactly what this law did.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not calling for a ban on guns nor am I even calling for more gun laws. I am simply demanding that the manufacturers and sellers of extremely dangerous weapons be responsible in who they sell those weapons to. They sure as shit shouldn’t be allowed to skirt around existing laws to sell their guns to anyone who has the money to buy one.
Whats the difference between a manufacturer selling a gun that they know the distributer will sell to a person who will sell it illegally? Why should they be allowed to willy nilly sell their weapons negligently with no civil liability?
So, in other words, it is your contention that the mere act of manufacturing firearms is enabling criminals, no matter how far down the chain they are from said criminals, and as a result should be charged as an accomplice?
If so, that’s the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee lets play grossly misrepresent our opponents argument.
I have stated time and time again that gun companies should only be held liable if they knowingly sell their guns to criminals in a negligent fashion. Let me say it one more time for the record. Gun companies should be held liable for damages when they sell their gun to a person that they know or should have known will sell it to a criminal.
For example if a gang leader walks into a gunshop and says I need a bunch of guns to murder a rival gang. If that shop sells them the guns they should be held liable for a portion of civil damages caused by those guns commenserate with their level of responsibility. If the manufacturer of those guns was negligent in ensuring that the dealers/distributers they were selling to were responsible in reselling those guns then they should also be held liable. The manufacturers and dealer have both negligently caused a dangerous situation and they should be held responsible for that.
Perhaps you should be able to comprehend my argument before you start tossing around insults.
I’m very much pro-gun but I’m not entirely comfortable with this decision. Though it may be applied to something I approve of in the here and now I am concerned that this might set a precedent that has some unintended consequences in the future that might make my inner child sad. I do think that the lawsuits were less about making things safe and more about a back door method of putting gun manufacturers out of business.
Marc
What is the point of this snide comment? 'Cause we know that scalding hot coffee never causes serious injury? Are you suggesting that coffee is the ultimate non-lethal defensive weapon? Or do you have even a clue of what you speak?
First of all, the use of “shoddy materials” and defective guns that post a risk of hazardous failure is virtually unheard of in modern firearms. Days of the Marlin “Widowmaker” and “Single Action Army Foot” are long in the past. Firearm manufacturers, and especially those based in or importing to the United States are highly cognizant of product liability issues stemming from lawsuits in the Sixties and Seventies. As a result, virtually all modern handguns (aside from some cheap small caliber pocket guns and target pistols) utilize some type of firing pin stop or sear stop to prevent accidental discharge if dropped. Similarly, the safety and loading systems on rifles and shotguns have been advanced to make them safer, to the point that true accidential (as opposed to negligent) discharges are almost strictly confined to cheap Chinese and Russian import guns of obsolete design like the SKS. Claims by gun prohibition advocates to the contrary, firearms are not the “least regulated consumer product on the planet”; while it’s true that they are not regulated by the Consumer Products Safety Commission or the Food and Drug Administration, firearm manufacturers, distributors, sellers, and purchasers are all regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms in addition to a vast and often conflicting array of state and local regulations.
As for gun companies “funnelling guns to the black market” or somesuch; well, it’s true that some manufacturers of cheap, low-end guns like the Tec-9 have promoted their products as appealing and being popular with the criminal element in a way that is repugnant to any responsible gun owner. I can’t speak in defense to that, although I do have to make the point that, again, the ATF regulates the channels and vendors who can transport and sell these firearms; as far as I’m aware, no manufacturer is selling these things off the back dock. But the major combat/defense gun manufacturers–Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Armalite, Beretta USA, Remington, Mossburg, Ithica, et cetera–and the major importers–Interarms, Glock, HK USA, SIGARMS, and so forth–have a vested interest in not distributing firearms to criminals insofar as they all compete and largely depend upon volume sales to law enforcement. The majority of firearms used in crimes are either legally purchased and used in the heat of passion, or stolen. Only a small proportion come from “strawman” sales (where an FFL holder sells to an ostensibly legitimate third party, who then resells to criminal elements).
More troublesome is the situation with military arms sales to the international market; selling weapons that are likely to be used to forment unrest and against noncombatants. All of the major players have a hand in this, though the largest of sellers in this regard are the Russian and Chinese manufacturers of the Kalashnikov designs and the Fabrique Nationale FAL knockoffs that are so popular around the globe. In any case, the federal government, as well as governments of other nations, are a facilitating player in this game.
A firearm is a device specifically designed to project a slug of metal at a rate of speed near or in excess of the speed of sound. Anyone who thinks that this activity is intrinsically “safe”, particularly for anyone on the business end of the mechanism needs a lesson in reality. Firearms are not “safe” in terms of function; although consumers have every right to expect that the gun will function as advertised without blowing up or otherwise posing an unforeseen hazard it is beyond expectation to insist that guns are safe. Loopydude says:
This is a valid point, and if such devices were available then it would be a legitimate argument. As it stands, though, there is not a device on the market that would both automatically prohibit an unauthorized user from using a gun while allowing the owner to rely on the functioning of the weapon. Attempts to develop this technology–like the Magna-Trigger–have been less than reliable in both respects. Were there such a device, law enforcement agencies would be in line to procure this for their own officers and agents, as having a gun snatched by a criminal is one of the largest threats police officers face when entering a close-quarters situation. For what it is worth, many gun manufacturers now supply a trigger lock with a firearm, and a couple have included a locking mechanism intrinsic to the gun, but again this requires the owner to secure the mechanism.
The objection to liability suits regarding criminal use of firearms (as opposed to actual mechanical defect) is that this is just a litigious method of enacting defacto gun control regulations in an extralegal manner; if a bill is submitted, it must be reviewed, amended, passed by two bodies, signed by an executive, and subject to court reversal or invalidation by higher courts. A lawsuit based nominally upon liability, however, circumvents those processes which are, at least to some extent, under the control of elected representatives in favor of a system that is even more subject to manipulation and bias than the political system, and creating civil precident that is essentially impossible to reverse on principled or Constitutional grounds. In other words, it’s a cheat way of enacting gun control that escapes representative review.
Whether the sales and access to firearms should be more tightly regulated is a question that, despite screeching by extremists on both sides of the issue, is a complicated and nuanced debate that belongs in a public, representative forum. Trying to short-circuit that with a Machiavellian rationale is contemptable to say the least, and plays best in terms of keeping liability lawyers’ trophy wives in furs and jewels. Manufacturers should be responsible for the quality and safety of the functioning of their products, but holding them responsible for misuse, particularly with a product that is deliberately designed for the function of causing damage (whether to paper, mellons, or meat) when used properly is disingenous and dishonest.
Stranger
No, it is being decided, in advance of the facts, that any potential case mst be unjust, in order to protect an industry from the possibilty that a court might rule against them.
Can I at least imagine a just case? Sure. Does it currently exist? I doubt it. But this law gives “sweeping protection” out of distrust of fellow citizens’ decisions and is an excessive use of federal power.
Hey! Check this out!
But WTF is this all about? Who decides what constitutes “armor piercing” ammo? :rolleyes:
The only thing I wonder about is why should they have this special protection? Is it because they saw a certain movie based on a certain John Grisham novel? What makes them different from, say, Wallmart, McDonalds, Enron, or any of the Tobacco companies?
What if it turns out that gun manufactorers know that guns are bad for society and responsible for, say, unnecessary deaths a year - that prohibiting guns would in fact save lives, but they spend a sizeable part of their profits each year to hide that fact from public knowledge, by paying researchers to come up with certain contraindicating data, campaigning and lobbying to prevent anti-gun laws from passing congress and so on. Are you absolutely certain that they should be protected specially?
But on the general principle I agree with you to some extent. There are some holes in the U.S. legal system, or at the very least certain habits, that make companies more vulnerable than they deserve (but in other areas also more powerful, so I’m not sure it doesn’t pan out).
Anyway, in principle, and scenarios like I gave above excepted, as long as selling guns is legal, voters and politicians can be blamed, but not these companies. But a better solution, imho, would be to come up with a way to limit the amount of times you can be tried for a similar case.
No. It takes very little time to write allegations and demand, in discovery, “all documents relating to…” Responding to the allegations, reviewing the documents, and producing those responsive to the demand can take far longer.
It can cost ten times as much to defend a lawsuit as to bring it.