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

Great Debates
141

Now now.

They were not being sued because they they make a legal product. They were being sued on the premise that the particular products that they made, even though legal, were a “public nusiance” contributing to deaths … a premise that the courts were consistently rejecting.

Those who were using the courts in order to create change that they had been unable to effect through the legislature, were not trying to ban guns. They were trying to force what they considered to be more responsible behavior out of the manufacturers, such as that taken by Smith and Wesson. If specific guns that they believed were particularly well suited for the criminal market were no longer produced, they would shed no tears. Whether or not that agenda is a good or bad outcome is a seperate debate. Whether or not using the courts to effect behavior change in industries is a reasonable tactic is very debatable. Certainly some good has come from the deterrant effect of lawsuits for negligent behaviors. And some bad. I’d think more bad.

But statements that anyone who is for different gun controls and a shift to what they percieve as more of a consideration of the public’s safety, is for a complete ban, is misrepresentation in extreme. Even if some individuals would want that.

142

May I ask a question of several folks who posted back on page one (before the text of the law had been provided)? Several persons (I have four specific examples below) stated they were under the impression this law would preempt filing of all civil liability lawsuits against gun manufacturers and dealers. I’d like to know how and where these persons came about their ideas? If you folks have learned this through some generally available media source (national/local newscast or newspaper), I’d like to know who exactly is dispensing this bogus information. Letters to these organizations are in order for spreading false information. If you guys have learned this from the various gun control groups, I’d appreciate you pointing me to such statements on their websites. I wanna catalog and document the spread of this obfuscation for future use.

Specifically, I see this errant assumption made explicit, although not quite as broadly as the other three instances noted below, by treis in post #8 where he says, “I disagree with giving the gun companies immunity in cases where they sell guns to people that they know or should have known would committ crimes with them.”

Also, loopydude has indicated he, at least initially, held this view when he said in post #13, “It’s moot, though, as the gun manufacturers are now protected from ever having to deal with the issue if they don’t want to.”

The Tooth says he thought blanket immunity was an aspect of this law in post #28, “I don’t understand how a government can just decide that no civil lawsuit can possibly have merit.” The Tooth explicates his view in post #47 by saying, “However, it seems that it’s been determined beforehand by legislative fiat now: no circumstances are appropriate.”

Finally, DSeid repeats the same mistaken assumption in his post #37, “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.” DSeid futher expands in this in post #42, “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.”

Just where did you guys get your information? I’m not asking to be confrontational about this; I’m just curious. It’s long been known to me, the limitations and boundaries of the exemptions contained in this law and I’m rather astonished by the number of persons who aren’t aware of the types of civil suits the law still allows. It seems that nearly every person who expressed a strong opposition to the law, held an incorrect interpretation.

As to my own view, I believe the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (which Bush has now signed, by the way) is a positive step towards protecting an important industry in the United States. I only regret that this appears it will be yet one more thing that gun control advocates will consistently misstate in many gun control debates and the gun rights faction will have to take time to explain it properly.

143

In the situation being corrected by this law (a lawsuit factory churns out a batch of allegations, which can be trivially customized for each new target after the first), the ratio can be on the order of a hundred, or perhaps even a thousand.

144

I suspect that if the anti-junk-food crusaders made as much of a nuisance of themselves through frivolous lawsuits as the anti-gun-ownership crusaders, McDonalds et al would get similar protection (and properly so).

145

uh Steve, they did, and they do. The day before they got special protection too. Uncle Beer needs to read the rest of the thread.

146

I have read the rest of the thread. What I’m asking ain’t in there. I wanna know specifically how people initially formed their mistaken understandings of this new law. Was it through an ABC news story, something posted on a gun-control website, or what? Surely you the people so vehement in their opposition to this law formed their opinion through some informational source. They didn’t just wake up in the morning and think, “Oh shit! Gun makers can’t be sued.”

I realize that most of the people initially expressing the mistaked view later acknowledged their error. I wanna know how that view was formed. What did you read or hear that caused your erroneous view? You specifically said, " it actually is more narrowly framed than the news blurbs painted it." I wanna know what news blurbs have paint on their hands.

Seems a reasonable request to me and not deserving of your snide tone. Particularly since this thread demonstrates a certain your willingness to jump to unfounded conclusions.

147

UB

Well just maybe people got that impression from, say, the op and the associated link, which described “sweeping” and “broad” protections? In fact I didn’t see any news outlets use anything but that kind of description. Where exactly did you get your information before Campion posted it? I certainly saw no mainstream media that reported a headline of “Paltry Protection Passed for Pistol Producers!!!”

And I’ll stand by my assessment with the specific hypothetical proposed as being a reasonable question even after the text was linked. Cases are being prejudged in advance of knowledge of the specific facts, in order to protect an industry. That fact is not “mistaken”, nor an “unfounded conclusion”. What Campion made clear, by presenting a reasoned and researched response, was that such cases, even one as extreme as my hypothetical, would lose already if the Illinois ruling is any measure, so the law really didn’t create any injustice by its prejudgements. It is instead just superfluous.

148

It’s often difficult to read through a news article and figure out what the facts are. It is very, very difficult to write something without any slant or bias in it, and simply to report the facts. If only the media would hire academic historians to report the news to us, I think we would get a more neutral explanation of the facts. But it wouldn’t necessarily be gripping, and it would require more words, more space, to explain things.

Take the articles about this law, for example. They refer to is as “broad” and “sweeping” legislation. What do those words mean, and are they an accurate representation of what this legislation actually is? Maybe, maybe not. In this instance, even assuming those terms were used fairly, some people misinterpreted them in reaching their understanding about this legislation. So I can’t fault people for relying on the media report, and I do give them credit for reading the legislation and reforming their opinions once they’d reviewed it.

I also agree with DSeid that his hypothetical is, at least in my mind, not a clear case either before or after this legislation. Even having read the legislation, DSeid wasn’t convinced that the legislation appropriately dealt with the scenario he posited. Frankly, I spent some time puzzling about it and I’m still not convinced that I couldn’t make a claim for improper marketing (dressed up more prettily) under the facts as he put them.

UncleBeer, I do get the impression that there is an agenda behind your posts; I haven’t been here very long, so I could just be reading something that isn’t there. But if you’re making the point I think you’re making, we agree. In my mind, the media are dangerous. Sometimes I wonder if we’re really at war in Iraq. After all, I have only the media to tell me it’s so.

149

I can’t speak for Uncle or Campion, but I’ve known about the scope of the legislation since the NRA-ILA’s and the SAF’s e-news alerts arrived in my e-mail a while back.

While accompanied by the usual pro-gun rhetoric, both accounts of the legislation were dead-on accurate with the posted bills on the government’s websites.

150

I’m too am wondering if some of you have an agenda But it is those who are so vocal about this bill being so bad that has me wondering. Considering that I haven’t heard a concrete “this bill is bad because…”.

I mean do you object to other bills as vehimintly(sp) as this one? If so you are probably mighty busy. If not why this one?

Dseid didn’t give any specific rights being violated.All he ever said was why should they be protected and ,by the way, wished he could be protected in the same way.

So I’m guessing you are against anything that gives the gun industry any chance of defending itself which is why this legislation is necessary.

151

Just, the reasons for my belief that it is a bad law have indeed been posted and reposted. Singling out special classes of citizens, corporate or individual, for special protections, is wrong unless some very special circumstance of greater good is so served. I have not seen that case made. Telling individuals, in advance of knowledge of their specific case, that they cannot have a day in court to seek redress from a percieved wrong, is a limitation of the rights that we currently grant our citizens. (NO, the right to sue is not in the Constitution! More generically “rights.”) Anytime Federal intervention is imposed the burden of proof is on those who wish impose it that such is needed to a degree sufficent to justify the intervention. If I want taxes on products that contain trans-fats, say, then it is up to me to prove that the benefit is likely to justify the imposition, not on others to prove it is not. If I cannot make that case then the tax should not be imposed. I had and have not seen that case made here. All I heard at the start was that anyone against this law must be for banning and that gun manufacturers were being sued to put them out of business. Neither of which are accurate statements. To his/her credit E-Sabbath at least soon engaged in actual debate, and Campion is quickly establishing a name for (I believe it is “herself”) as the Tamerlane of legal questions. Unbiased knowledgable answers without an agenda attached.

Why post on this one law? [ul]
[li]Well this one had an open thread on it asking the question.[/li][li]Gun Rights advocates include some with very libertarian stances. Increasing federal intervention and decreasing the ability to achieve redress in the courts is very much against basic libertarian principles. I wondered how those would be reconciled and justified. I suspected that much hypocrisy would be forthcoming.[/li][li]I am very interested in how we balance different values. Me, I am for a different degree of gun control than we have now (see previous debates, no need to go there here, I don’t have the energy or the time) but am against bans. I am for trying to impose these controls at a federal level and against frivilous lawsuits. Being able to balance my interests with consistency (rather than the hypocrisy I was seeing in some gun rights advocates’ positions, and from some gun control advocates as well) was an exercise of interest to me.[/li][/ul]
Are those enough for you?

152

Perhaps, but that’s what comes from making your judgments based on quotations and “sound bites” from persons with an agenda. I’d not base my opinion what the law prohibits, or allows, on the words of Wayne LaPierre either.

However, I must be confusing the linked article with another news story I read yesterday. I’d swear there was a paragraph describing the limitations of the new law. My bad and I apologize for my inference; I now understand completely how the mistaken impressions could have been formed if that linked story was one’s only source of information.

In any case, that is a very poorly written and researched “news” story by Reuters. It’s little more than some broad generalizations - which haven’t been supported with passages from the law - and a few snappy quotes from the folks with an agenda - on both sides of the issue. Following thru with my previously stated intentions, I’m drafting a letter to Reuters pointing out the shortcomings of their story.

Where did I get my information describing the specifics of the law? From the National Shooting Sports Foundation - www.nssf.org - and their newsletters going all the way back to June of 2003 when the bill was still S. 659 (and H. 800). And then by reading the actual bill at www.senate.gov. Granted, the NSSF is in no way a major news source, but if a person is interested enough in an issue to have such a strong opinion as those expressed on page one here, I think it’s incumbent upon that person to gather more information than that presented in such an obviously poorly written “news” story.

Here’s the text of a press release from the NSSF on Feb 16, 2005. It provides a pretty clear description of the boundaries of the lawsuits S. 397 prohibits.
http://www.nssf.org./news/PR_idx.cfm?AoI=generic&PRloc=common/PR/&PR=021605.cfm

153

You’ve got two points in there that I want to address. I’ll do the last first.

Yes, I believe you do understand the larger point I’m trying to make. That one shouldn’t necessarily take at face value things reported as “facts” in a newspaper story. Particularly one as poorly written as the Reuters story linked in the OP. I think it also appropriate here for me to join you in your commendation of the persons who revised their opinions after seeing a more complete picture. It’s never wise to become too wedded to one’s position, especially when that opinion is based on a single source. I congratulate you guys who were willing to revise your opinions on such an emotional topic as firearms.

Second, yeah, I do have a bit of an agenda in my posts. Mebbe a two-pronged agenda even. Number one, I’m one of the staunchest and most outspoken gun rights advocates on this message board. But I think (others may argue differently) that I back up my strong opinions with strong evidence, relevant citations, considerable research, and deliberate thought - at least here in GD; not so much in the Pit where different rules apply. It at times angers me to see people express such vehement opinions when they prove to be poorly founded.

The second prong here is that misconceptions are rife among the SDMB’s (and many other) gon control proponents. Nearly every gun debate here is peppered with serious mistakes of fact and law by gun control advocates. It is very tiresome to have to correct these errors time and again before a substantive exchange of ideas can take place. If I can identify the sources of these errors - where the gun control advocates are getting them, I can then do two things: draft a canned response which addresses these common errors saving me some time (and ire); and also take up my grievances at the source. Not that I expect to convince anyone at the various gun control advocacy websites, but more with the media. Most of those organizations are willing to at least consider constructive criticism and at times even issue corrections when appropriate.

154

Well, I’m always willing to engage in reasoned debate. Did it to an anti-war protest… and a pro war counterprotest… last night. Fun. Got to talk face to megaphone with a gentleman who just couldn’t explain why we should cut and run, and then with a jarhead whose general point was that he was in Iraq once.

Megaphones really aren’t that loud, are they?

Anyhow, still waiting for that analysis of the law, regarding the OG example. As far as I can tell, that is what you object to, right?

155

Yes. And I think that the analysis is complete. So it is objected to. This law likely doesn’t change much. It wouldn’t win now and it likely wouldn’t before. And really? Meaphones aren’t that loud?

UB, I think that you realize that many of us do not subscribe to gun lobby newsletters and that those of us who, admittedly are on the control side of this divide, would’ve been as wont to accept their analysis as you’d have been of a Brady blog. Despite the fact that they nailed it this time. My bad, for not going directly to the Senate site on my own, right off.

156

Well, I believe the ultimate fault here, if such must be found, lies with Reuters for publishing such a shoddy story.

157

Well, it was on my nose, and it wasn’t any louder than a good pair of headphones at full volume. Certainly not as painful as the gentleman seemed to wish it to be.

158

the reasons for my belief that it is a bad law have indeed been posted and reposted. Singling out special classes of citizens, corporate or individual, for special protections, is wrong unless some very special circumstance of greater good is so served. I have not seen that case made.

Well there you have it.

Posted and reposted by you.

Long winded posts don’t necessarily explain anything.
Lets keep it simple.
I don’t type fast and my computer isn’t the fastest either.
So here goes short and simple.
When anyone is charged with being an accessory to a crime it should be necessary for the proof to include active participatation in the crime.
This wasn’t being done.
It doesn’t take a IQ above maybe 3rd grade to realize That if you point a gun at someone and it goes off it is your fault that it might hurt someone.
You can’t blame anyone else.
Now some may feel that 3rd grade isn’t enough education to realize fault but no one with any resemblence of right and wrong would blame the producer of the gun for the actions of the the shooter.

There it is.
short and simple.

The fact that high paid lawyers have twisted the law to blame the blameless is what the law is about.

159

Oh, simply? I don’t have a libertarian problem with this, as it settles a perversion of the intent of the existance of the legal system.

In short, if the legal system exists, basically, in order to settle disputes, insofar as civil cases are concerned, these lawsuits count as ‘gaming the system’, and not playing ‘by the rules’. Thus, refining the rules to exclude them seems fine by me.

It’s more or less… well, contract law, basically. Social contract law? As opposed to regulation and prohibition.

Certainly, all industries should have similar protection, if appropriate. Gaming the system should be against the law. But I’m not going to complain if it’s done piecemeal. Better one step forwards than a Great Leap and a fall on your nose.

160

A few points of clarification:

The gun manufacturers were not being charged with being accessories to a crime. They were being sued civilly. The theories of liability being used in civil court, as far as I know, generally did not include accusing the gun manufacturers of being an accessory. But to the extent that they did, those causes of action would survive this new legislation, under the section exempting aiding and abetting or conspiracy.

True, any third-grader could tell you that if you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, you’re responsible for what you did. But that isn’t the question. The question is: how did you get to that point? Did anyone help you? Should they be held responsible for getting you there?

The arguments made (at least in the Young case) were that the gun manufacturers deliberately targeted a segment of the population that planned to use the gun to commit crimes, and that in doing so – in putting more guns into the hands of the criminal element – the gun manufacturers created a public nuisance, making our cities less safe, and endangering everyone.

Baloney? Yeah (in my biased opinion). But that’s how the law deals with baloney theories – they get run up the flagpole and shot down a few times before there’s a significant body of law that makes it clear the theory is bunk.

The problem isn’t the moral blame; it’s the legal liability. Congress passed this law to make it plain that these types of lawsuits no longer are viable. I’m a bit confused because it seems that you oppose the law, but in fact all of your arguments are in favor of it. If these actions are, indeed, frivolous, as you seem to be arguing, then why shouldn’t Congress pass a law that states that? Why should we have to wait for the slow development of the common law in all jurisdictions as these cases are tested and rejected? And, again, there is a tremendous cost, including to the judicial system itself, to having these suits work themselves through the system if they are baseless. The time that the courts spend on these cases is time they cannot spend on other matters. Take the Young case – it took the trial court, appellate court, and state supreme court’s time to resolve.

Maybe it is what the law is about, but it isn’t what the law ought to be about. The law (including equity) ought to be about justice. The reason we have a system set up as we do is to permit justice to happen. I realize that this isn’t the general perception of the legal system (and some days, it’s not my perception of it either).

Another thing – the lawyers who bring these types of suits are not generally “high paid,” but they are rich, and they do have significant war chests, money accumulated in other lawsuits that they use to fund these lawsuits.

The one benefit of the law we really haven’t explored is that it changes the leverage for settlement. Because this law sets a blanket prohibition on a category of lawsuits, any lawyer bringing one of the prohibited suits knows that he will have a harder time forcing a settlement. Because the outcome of such a suit is now more certain than it was before the law was passed, it means that a gun manufacturer is less likely to be extorted for settlement money – “If you don’t pay me X million dollars, I’ll pursue this lawsuit and it will cost you that much to pay your own lawyers to defend.”