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.
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.
[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.
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?
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.
I tried, but I had to stop 'less the urge to gouge out my brain through my eyeballs with a dull knife become overwhelming.
Again: read the legislation. It provides for the following:
It defines a “Qualified Civil Liability Action” as thus:
!!!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]
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.
That means that what follows are NOT “Qualified Civil Liability Action(s)”…
…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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
