justwannano,
No, contending that is not deciding that. It is someone claiming it. This law says that they are wrong in advance of discovery of the facts.
Eliminating citizens’s ability to a day in court is a significant constriction. Any constriction on rights and privleges that we currently have must be justified by a benefit significant enough to justify it. No such situation exists here. To win in court tobacco plaintiffs had to prove that the industry knew and hid information from the public and knowingly marketed the product in ways that would case harm while attempting to hide that information. Not just that the product caused harm. For a case to win against the gun industry, a plaintiff would have to prove that a manufacturer or distributer knowingly designed and marketed a product with the illegal market in mind. Since I do not believe that is the case then this law is unneeded. But if it was true a suit would be justified. And this law would be unjust. The only benefit of the law is to protect the gun industry from the annoyance of frivilous suits. That is not significant enough to warrant the constrictions upon individual rights proposed.
Now don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against tort reform. As a doctor I have been sued, and settled a suit without merit because you never know what a Cook County jury will do and how much over policy limits they’ll go. But remedies must be measured against constrictions. This would be the same as saying that there can be no medmal suits at all. And we are having a hard enough time just convincing people that caps on non-economic damages are not too constrictive.
Shouldn’t be too hard to imagine. Colt’s has a long history of being bankrupt or nearly so stretching back to it’s beginnings. In our times, things have been difficult for the company for the last 20 years. They lost out on the new US service pistol contract to Beretta in 1984. They lost most of their skilled workforce during a 4-year worker’s strike. They lost the contract for M-16 production to FN as a result of declining product quality (and being underbid). Their line of civilian firearms sold so poorly that all but a couple models were dropped from production. As a result of all this, they filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1992. Following the purchase of Colt’s assets by Zilkha & Co., there were more bad decisions. Their CEO, Ron Stewart, was forced into resignation because of some political statements he made that resulted in a boycott from what few customers Colt’s still had. They introduced a couple of new handgun models which were resounding failures. They made a much-publicized foray into developing smartgun technology which never produced anything remotely functional.
At present they are far from a financial powerhouse. Their chief sales are in producing 1911’s and SAA’s for the market niche who simply must have such a gun that is a real Colt and the M-4 carbine. Though the M-4 is really nothing but a shorty M-16, Colt’s holds the patent on certain “unique” features. Bushmaster and FN both lost contracts to produce it, though they were low bid, when legal proceedings clarified that.
Bottom line? None of the American gun producers are what you could call huge corporations. There are only a few of them and together they employ only a few thousand people nationwide. Moreover, though they are all competitors in the market, they all do subcontract work for each other. That is why there was the effort to sue them out of existence in the first place, because it was perceived as a quick and easy way to ban gun production.
It’s not just protecting the gun manufacturer from frivilous suits, it is preventing the waste of the courts time. With many courts backlogged as it is, preventing suits that are going to be thrown our from being filed in the first place saves time and money. Taxpayer money.
No. This statute says that, as a matter of law, a manufacturer is not liable for the third-party misuse of his product.
Plenty of other laws impose or restrict liability in specific situations, or limit evidence that can be used.
An example: if you sue a store because their entrance is dark and the steps are too steep, and they subsequently makes repairs to make the steps more gentle and add extra lights, you are forbidden from even mentioning that fact in court as evidence that your contentions are justified. This is a matter of law.
No it is not being decided before the facts.
The first judge that allowed some high priced lawyer to argue manufacturers liability by just being a manufacturer did that.
Lets look at it a different way.
Another weapon has been in use much longer than the gun.
Its the knife.
Should knife manufacturers be hounded like gun manufacturers if their product is used in an illegal manner?
How would you like it if every scauple were overpriced like guns are because some lawyer won a liability case? As a doctor you should see the overriding circumstances of over use of the legal system.
You should be super concious of liability and the abuses of the legal system.
You’re lucky you don’t have an organization trying to ban the knife.
Silly comparison? Maybe but the knife is “responsible” for more deaths than the gun.
By whom? I think they were sued because it was believed they were responsible for the uses to which their products were put. This sounds like one of those well-poisoning things, like the claim that supporters of the AWB wanted those guns banned because they looked scary even though no supporter of the AWB ever made that claim.
Anyway, I didn’t say any of these outfits were giant corporations, I said I doubt anyone would grant a reward large enough to drive them out of business. I doubt that would’ve happened for lawsuits now deemed to frivolous to entertain, and I doubt it will happen in future legitimate lawsuits
Hey, the question of “Can I be sued?” is usually answered “Yes. But they’d lose.” As a doctor I can always be sued no matter if I did everything right. But I’d win if I fought it. Usually. Obviously the system is flawed and needs to be improved upon, but less so for gun manufacturers than for many of the rest of us. Knife manufacturers can be sued too. But they’d win unless they were proven negligent. Should they get carte blanche exemption too?
The situation for gun manufacturers has been the same, can they be sued? Sure. But it won’t go far without merit. They want protection such that even if there was merit they’d be held blameless. They want protection that none of the rest of us get. 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?
The benefit from this law is slight at best (unless you are a negligent gun manufacturer or distributer, freeing up the courts? c’mon!), and the excessive use of federal power that it represents is not justified by that slight benefit.
Tort reform for all. Carte blanche protection for none.
Thanks, Campion. I read some of this thread earlier this morning, but was too busy to C & P the text of the bill and address the more outre commentary from the hoplophobes.
DSeid: did you even bother reading this law? No defective manufacturer is exempt; no manufacturer/vendor caught in illegal acts are exempt. Manufacturers/vendors are only protected against criminal/negligent use of their products by a third party. Period.
I find it…irritating…that certain people who subscribe to a message board dedicated to stamping out ignorance will hold forth with uninformed opinions on a subject so easily researched.
But never let it be said that the anti-gun “nuts” (even the so-called “intelligent” ones here on the Straight Dope) would ever let a simple thing like a fact get in the way of their irrational fear and hate.
I would like to address everyone’s attention to the opening clauses of this landmark legislation:
AND…
Damn Skippy! 'Bout damned time!
And For The Record:
In the Senate: 65 for, 31 against, 4 no vote. Over 2:1 for.
In the House: 283 for, 144 againt, 6 no vote. Almost 2:1 for.
This goes beyond narrow party dogma and partisan politics for an overwhelming majority of Congress; the anti-gun “nuts” can’t fob this off on E-vil 'publicans in thrall to the E-vil gun lobby (even though I fully expect them to try).
Some posters in this thread seem to be completely ignoring this, so I have repeated it.
Comparing the gun industry to knives or anything else doesn’t hold up. There is no movement in this country that is seeking to ban knives and bankrupt knife makers with frivilous lawsuits. That was what this law was designed to defend against. It’s a unique situation, and was absolutely worth passing a law to protect the industry against.
People were trying to sue the gun companies out of business just for making a legal, high quality product.
Just because they went bankrupt paying damages doesn’t mean that was the intent of the suit. The Second Amendment Foundation just quotes someone making the same claim made in this thread: that’s not proof anymore than Bill O’Reilly claiming liberals hate freedom makes it so. And the Reason article states that the mayor was suing for damages, not suing with intent to bankrupt the manufacturer. Nothing of the sort is mentioned.
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.
Now, that may be hyperbole, later in that article, but… Well, heck, it’s either greed or some kind of noble cause. Or some third thing. But the lawsuits do seem to be without legal basis, but aimed to either change the company’s behavior or do serious harm to them financially.
We got a term for that where I come from. Two of 'em. Barraty… and bullshit.
Put out of business may or may not be an exaggeration, but they’re still bullshit suits, without a leg to stand on, aimed to cause the companies to knuckle under to an agenda.
Clearly, these lawsuits were a danger to the entire gun industry. They were supported by anti-gun groups like the Brady campaign / Handgun Control, Inc. and others.
It’s the obvious result. If you are suing a gun company for making guns, then it stands to reason that they won’t be in business much longer doesn’t it?
Clearly, this is a back door attempt at banning guns. Since the politicians can’t get guns banned through the legislature, they try to do it through the courts. No reasonable person can claim that this isn’t the case.
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.
Oh, entertainingly enough, in the link about the devasting effects of lawsuits cited by E-Sabbath is this devasting effect
Well, let’s see. Maybe I misread you. I am honest, after all.
That seems to cover more or less what you said. I may be reading it wrong, but it does seem to cover it.
If it doesn’t… well… huh. Okay, so Colt designs the ‘Tech-9-Bling’, sell it with gangsta advertisements. The Baby-Gs buy it as they don’t have records, give it to the OGs who do.
So… you want to sue Colt because of what the Baby-Gs did? Like suing the Tobacco Companies for the existance of Joe Camel. Now, there’s two ways here. Either you can prove it was done that way, in which case the suit’s legit, or you just really think so.
If you just really think that the pink and flowery ‘LadyColt’ is actually a message to the gangstas to buy it… you could sue 'em for the existance of the ‘LadyColt’, anyhow. Don’t tell me it’s obvious, you have to have evidence. If you don’t have evidence, it’s bullshit. If you do have evidence, it’s legit. Law says so.
