Protecting U.S. gun manufacturers from lawsuits, good or bad?

[The_Tooth]

@Airman Doors

As far as I can tell this is still a legit cause for redress.

It had better be, but that’s not specified in the article. It only mentions “sweeping protection” and “blanket immunity” and that “The bill also is part of the conservative agenda of limiting lawsuits and tort reform”.

Then that distributor is a criminal and should be charged accordingly. What does the manufacturer have to do with that?

Nothing. But this protection also extends to dealers and distributors. It’s my understanding that sometimes criminal convictions are sometimes followed by civil actions when it’s appropriate. This legislation seems to offer immunity to 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.

That the people bringing the suits are digging for gold is a claim made by the backers of the legislation, but that doesn’t make it true. If it is true, then the frivolity of the lawsuit should be determined by the judge hearing the case, not by governmental fiat beforehand.

Wrong. They act as a means of escape, thus enabling criminals and making crimes far more successful than they might be.

Nonsense. A mugger with a gun makes a much more convincing case for why I should hand over my money than a mugger with a knife because I can outrun a knife. Whether he has a getaway vehicle available afterwards is irrelevant. Pretending cars empower criminals the same way guns do idoesn’t wash with me.

They’re not. They’re evening the playing field.

Ah, I see. Because before this legislation came along gun manufacturers who can afford the best legal representation money can buy were at a serious disadvantage.

[DSeid]

It is hypocrisy.

Look, since every gun used in a crime began life as a legal gun, it is pretty clear that banning all guns outright would significantly reduce gun crime. This would be however an excessive and unjust infringement upon legitimate gun owners’ rights and most of us are against it. The legitimate question in gun regulation is striking the balance between those rights and the benefit of regulations. At this point or society has decided that the current level of regulation is the balance. Some feel it is too much; some feel it is too little; some that it is too patchwork. But we do not impose excessive remedies and stomp on individual rights to get there. A desired goal is not worth any solution. Gun rights advocates know that.

Stopping frivilous lawsuits is a laudatory goal, but this prejudging of all future cases as frivilous in advance of the specific facts is stomping on individual rights as much as a total gun ban would. Hypocrisy and bad law making.

[The_Tooth]

@Stranger On A Train

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.

But not beyond the realm of possibility.

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.

Lawsuits which are apparently banned now.

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.

“Virtually unheard of”, “virtually all”, “almost”. That’s all fine and good. So there won’t be many such lawsuits. Glad to hear it. That doesn’t convince me they should be banned, though.

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).

Again, this is all fine and good. I don’t see why this justifies banning a civil suit against a distributor should appropriate circumstances arise.

[enipla]

@treis

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.

Or maybe a distributor requests 200 AR-15s from Colt with the expressed desire to use them to start a riot. :rolleyes:

[Bricker]

@The Tooth

Again, this is all fine and good. I don’t see why this justifies banning a civil suit against a distributor should appropriate circumstances arise.

Give me an example of “appropriate circumstances” that are now banned.

[E-Sabbath]

From the start: There recently have been a number of cases… at least three that reached national attention that I recall, that have been filed against gun manufacturers, like Colt, for a non-malfunctioning, perfectly designed and operating as intended gun, being used in a crime.

These guns, as far as I’m aware, have been sold to legitimate distributors by Colt. At some point after that, they reached the hands of criminals… or, in fact, a homeowner in one case, as I recall. (I may be wrong) The homeowner’s gun was… was either found by a child or the guy shot his child, I forget which. I do not know how long any of those guns were in circulation. Some may have been made up to 80 years ago.

It was decided to sue Colt and other manufacturers, for these guns, used in crimes. There is no evidence of a direct link between the manufacturer and the criminals. However, there are motives to sue the manufacturers.
One: To reduce the number of guns made, and possibly put the manufacturers out of business due to liability issues.
Two: You can get money from them if you win.
As I understand it, this is remarkably like suing Ford if a car dealer sells a car to a known criminal, who then uses it in a crime. Or if a car dealer sells the car to a person, the car is stolen, and used in a crime. Or if a car dealer’s son steals the car from the dealer, and uses it in a crime.

There are laws designed to handle poor manufacturing and negligence. These lawsuits are not covered in them, as this would be considered a new and wholy invented version of case law, much like suing McDonalds for making you fat.

Furthermore, there is a national security interest in keeping these manufacturers intact.

That said, while I don’t like the need for the law, I do not see it as a perversion of justice, simply a nice way to get rid of nuisance lawsuits.

Where am I wrong, here?

[The_Tooth]

@Bricker

Give me an example of “appropriate circumstances” that are now banned.

It’s not up to me to determine whether the circumstances are appropriate, being versed in neither the ins and outs of being a distributor nor law. That, ostensibly, is what the legal system is supposed to determine. However, it seems that it’s been determined beforehand by legislative fiat now: no circumstances are appropriate.

[Bricker]

@The Tooth

It’s not up to me to determine whether the circumstances are appropriate, being versed in neither the ins and outs of being a distributor nor law. That, ostensibly, is what the legal system is supposed to determine. However, it seems that it’s been determined beforehand by legislative fiat now: no circumstances are appropriate.

That’s not so. The law does not say that no circumstances are appropriate. It permits a number of types of lawsuits to go forward. It only limits certain claims.

[Campion]

Here is the text of the Senate Bill that was passed. In any discussion about whether certain legislation is or is not wise, it generally helps to know what the legislation says. The critical part is the definition of a Qualified Civil Liability Action, including those types of action specifically excluded from that definition.

         (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--

                    (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.

              (B) NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT- As used in subparagraph (A)(ii), the term `negligent entrustment' means the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.

              (C) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- The exceptions enumerated under clauses (i) through (v) of subparagraph (A) shall be construed so as not to be in conflict, and no provision of this Act shall be construed to create a public or private cause of action or remedy.

              (D) MINOR CHILD EXCEPTION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit the right of a person under 17 years of age to recover damages authorized under Federal or State law in a civil action that meets 1 of the requirements under clauses (i) through (v) of subparagraph (A).

In short, the law would prohibit suits for “the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party.” Negligent entrustment is exempted; strict product lliability (i.e., “shoddy” workmanship) is unaffected.

Now that you all can see what is at issue, carry on.

[The_Tooth]

I don’t see that in the article. It only mentions “sweeping protections” and “blanket immunity”. Even if certain types of lawsuits can be heard, this legislation determines that a lawsuit is frivolous before the case has even been heard. How can this be good?

[Balle_M]

@treis

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.

False.

Here in WV anyone who is not an FFL dealer can treat firearms the same as any other private property.

[silenus]

Of course the news articles don’t mention what is covered by the legislation. If they did, it would undermine their fear-mongering. Declaring a certain type of lawsuit to be automatically frivolous is efficient use of court time. As Doors, among others has mentioned, all it prevents is people blaming the blameless for the actions of a third party.

[The_Tooth]

@Campion

Here is the text of the Senate Bill that was passed. In any discussion about whether certain legislation is or is not wise, it generally helps to know what the legislation says. The critical part is the definition of a Qualified Civil Liability Action, including those types of action specifically excluded from that definition.
In short, the law would prohibit suits for “the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party.” Negligent entrustment is exempted; strict product lliability (i.e., “shoddy” workmanship) is unaffected.

Glad to hear it. There appears to be plenty of room for legitimate complaint. Plenty. I stand corrected.

I’m not too keen on an industry, any industry, being given immunity in this way, though.

[E-Sabbath]

Not all that thrilled about the immunity, either, but there are national defense implications here, which is probably why Colt is protected, and McDonald’s isn’t, despite McDonald’s being a much richer company.

(I am not talking about coffee. Coffee was legit. I’m talking about ‘for selling fatty food’.)

[justwannano]

@DSeid

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.

Quote;
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.
Quote

Woah back up.
The contention that firearms manufacturers are knowingly or will knowingly sell to criminals more than fits your arguement.That is being decided ,in advance of the facts,

Whats being said here is the law is already unjustly condemning the industry.

Thats why this ruleing is necessary.

I’m at a loss here to understand why you think the runaway legal system should be allowed to continue to unjustly persecute gun manufacturers.( yes that is persecute.)

[The_Tooth]

@E-Sabbath

Not all that thrilled about the immunity, either, but there are national defense implications here, which is probably why Colt is protected, and McDonald’s isn’t, despite McDonald’s being a much richer company.

(I am not talking about coffee. Coffee was legit. I’m talking about ‘for selling fatty food’.)

I find the threat to national security angle hard to believe. If that were the case, it would be immune to all lawsuits. I also find it hard to imagine any lawsuit rewarding the plaintiff with a reward so large it would drive Colt out of business.

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@Campion

In short, the law would prohibit suits for “the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party.” Negligent entrustment is exempted; strict product lliability (i.e., “shoddy” workmanship) is unaffected.

Gah! I just spent the last twenty minutes locating and pasting the text of the bill only to have you undercut me! Now I have to cut all of that out of my response. Thanks, Campion. :mad:

I was under the impression that other respondants had actually read the text of the bill. As you can see from Campion’s link and text, the bill only protects manufacturers from suits stemming from unlawful misuse. These are, in other words, lawsuits based upon a spurious premise, that a normal functioning firearm is defective if he high speed projectile it is designed to emit is used in a criminal manner. It doesn’t protect manufacturers from suits due to defect, nor from engaging the sort of blatently illegal distribution methods that treis hypothesizes. (And talking about “grossly misrepresen
t[ing] our opponents argument,” I think your pot bears a bit of polishing.)

The bill doesn’t and can’t prevent anyone from bringing suit; it merely lays out some very specific and well-defined guidelines by which to determine whether the suit is spurious or not. It puts an end to the vague casting of absurd and tangential connections by which many municipalities (who bring these suits on the public dime and using civil servants which comprise an essentially blank check). This is part of an overall effort at tort reform, to create some kind of basis for the courts to determine what kind of claims are legitimate and which are contrived.

There are legitimate arguements to be made for increase regulation and control of firearms; most of them don’t hold a lot of water in my opinion as they tend to be based on ignorance of how a firearm functions (pistol grips, plastic stocks, and flash hiders to not make a firearm more lethal) and a determined indifference of the failure of gun control laws to demonstrate any efficacy in actually preventing crime, but there are valid points of debate nonetheless. Bringing spurious and baseless suits predicated on apocyphal and contrived arguments under the theory that anyone involved in the chain of manufacture or distribution is responsible for the conspicuous misuse of a firearm is ambulance chasing and litigious subverstion at its worst.

Please read the text of the bill before you start making baldfaced and misleading claims about what it will and will not do. It will not end lawsuits; it merely establishes a legal protection against a particular class of frivilous claims.

Stranger

[Debaser]

The gun industry isn’t just any other industry. Lawsuits were being used by the anti-gun groups to destroy the industry. This just isn’t the case with other industries. There’s no “anti-airlines” groups or “anti-resteraunt” groups to speak of that are trying to demolish those industries altogether.

The gun industry is a special case, one that required a special law.

The law seems well written to me. It leaves the companies open to lawsuits if they make a shoddy product, or otherwise face a legitimate lawsuit. But, they are rightly protected against foolish lawsuits that only seek to punish them for making a legal and quality product.

---

Now, on to the next step. There’s 144 representatives and 31 senators who need to lose their next elections. My next check is on it’s way to the NRA this weekend.

Does anybody have a cite of a breakdown of these politicians? I’m wondering if they are all democrats, or if any republicans voted against it also. When are they going to learn that you don’t fuck with gun rights?

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@The Tooth

I find the threat to national security angle hard to believe. If that were the case, it would be immune to all lawsuits. I also find it hard to imagine any lawsuit rewarding the plaintiff with a reward so large it would drive Colt out of business.

The national security issue is a bit of a red herring; Colt, in particular, no longer produces the M16 or the CAR-4/M-4 for the US DoD; in fact, we now procure our issue rifles from Fabrique Nationale, a Belgian arms manufacturer. In fact, the only American manufacturer currently supplying small arms to the US military is Barrett, whose civilian sales market is insignificant. (Barrett makes .50BMG sniper rifles, heavy machine guns, and the M468 assault rifle used by a few elite SpecOps groups.)

However, a “lawsuit rewarding the plaintiff with a reward so large it would drive Colt out of business,” is not so difficult to conceive; despite the perception given by a certain John Grisham novel and the movie adaptation thereof, firearms manufacturing is not a highly profitable business, and many manufacturers, particularly Colt, have struggled to maintain profitability and stay out of bankruptcy in the last few years particularly in the face of foriegn competition that isn’t subject to liability. (Nobody is going to get a dime off of Chinese slave-labor mfg Norinco.) A multimillion dollar punitive reward–hardly unheard of in these ligitious times–would be enough to push many manufacturers into the red.

Stranger

[Debaser]

Here is a breakdown of the votes for CA representatives:

HOW THEY VOTED

YES: Reps. Joe Baca, D-San Bernardino; Ken Calvert, R-Riverside; David Dreier, R-Glendora; Elton Gallegly, R-Thousand Oaks; Jerry Lewis, R-Redlands; Howard P. “Buck” McKeon, R-Santa Clarita; Gary Miller, R-Brea; Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach.

NO: Reps. Xavier Becerra, D-Los Angeles; Howard Berman, D-Van Nuys; Jane Harman, D-El Segundo; Juanita Millender-McDonald, D-Torrance; Grace Napolitano, D-Santa Fe Springs; Linda Sanchez, D-Lakewood; Adam Schiff, D-Pasadena; Hilda Solis, D-El Monte; Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles.

cite

It’s dissappointing that the Democrats still vote against gun rights like this. How can they not see that they are on the wrong side of this issue? They’re on the wrong side of public opinion. They’re on the wrong side of the constitution. If they want to start winning elections, they need to smarten up.