Skip to main content

This is a excerpt from an article I wrote and published here at dkos back in January, 2013 (here).  Because the article discusses aspects of gun law, it might be of interest to the readers of the Firearm law and Polcy group, so I am re-publishing it here, with an update.

Congressman Adam Schiff (D-California's 28th district) says he will introduce legislation to limit legal immunity for gun manufacturers and gun distributors.  Rep. Schiff is seeking to reduce or roll back the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

Said Schiff: “Good companies don't need special protection from the law.  Bad companies don't deserve it.”  Schiff is working on his proposal with the Brady Center, a lobbying group dedicated to reducing gun availability and gun injuries in the US..

In 2005, at the urging of the gun industry, congress passed, and GW Bush signed into law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).  The PLCAA limits civil liability suits brought against gun manufacturers, distributors, and retailers.

Under the PLCAA, many lawsuits against firearm manufacturers or sellers may not be brought in federal or state court.  Limited are civil liability actions and administrative proceedings brought against any federally licensed manufacturer or seller of firearms, or trade associations.  Suits seeking remuneration for “damages, punitive damages, injunctions 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” are restricted (A “qualified product” is broadly defined to include firearms, firearm parts, and ammunition.).  The act prohibits cities and states from bringing lawsuits even when the plaintiffs do not seek monetary damages, but only to stop dangerous or harmful conduct by manufacturers and sellers.  The law prohibits suits brought for injuries or losses sustained during both  “crimes” and non-criminal activities as well.

Some lawsuits against gun manufacturers and retailers are still allowed.  One may still sue the gun manufacturers for breach of contract, for selling a gun with the knowledge that the gun will be used in the commission of a crime, for a violation of state or federal laws regarding the sale or marketing of a firearm where the violation was the proximate cause of the harm sustained, and for design and manufacturing defects.  Suits are allowed for design defects, such as failure to include safety devices, but only if the firearm has been “used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner,” and the shooting must not have been caused by a “volitional act that constituted a criminal offense.”.  So if your child has been injured when playing with a gun, no lawsuit can be brought.

The PLCAA states that any “...civil liability action that is pending on the date of enactment of this Act shall be immediately dismissed by the court in which the action was brought or is currently proceeding.".  So the PLCAA served as the basis for the immediate dismissal of several lawsuits brought against gun manufacturers and distributors that were being litigated at the time the PLCAA became law.  Since then, the PLCAA has been the basis for the dismissal of subsequent suits as well.  There is no way of knowing how many suits were considered but never filed because of the PLCAA.  In the aftermath of the passage of the PLCAA, some states brought suit saying the PLCAA was unconstitutional.  However, the PLCAA has so far survived all challenges to its constitutionality.

Not surprisingly, the PLCAA was conceived and written after several municipalities – New York City, Atlanta, Chicago, and Gary (Indiana) – had filed lawsuits against firearm manufacturers and distributors during the 1990's.  The suits alleged that gun manufacturers' misleading advertising and illegal marketing caused cities to spend more on crime fighting and medical costs.  In Chicago, the suit was filed after a police sting operation revealed that many gun retailers were involved in illegal sales.  Also not surprisingly, the gun industry engaged in heavy lobbying for passage of the PLCAA.  The NRA has stated that the PLCAA is "vitally important" to end efforts by gun control groups to "bankrupt the American firearms industry through reckless lawsuits."

In crafting a federal law limiting suits brought in states' courts, the federal government over-rode states' power to regulate harmful business conduct within their own borders.  By preventing citizens from accessing the courts, public advocates say the federal government infringed on constitutionally-protected civil rights of citizens to access the courts and receive equal treatment under the law.  Until the passage of the PLCAA, no entire industry got such broad amnesty on the whole litigation process: neither automobile makers nor the pharmaceutical industry enjoys such protections, two industries that are common subjects of consumer liability suits.

Under standard product liability law, manufacturers are liable for defect in the design and construction of their products.  Tort liability provides a powerful means by which concerned individuals or groups can gain leverage against much wealthier business interests.  It is not necessary to win a suit to achieve a change in corporate business and behavior.  Often, the threat of lawsuits alone provide a powerful financial incentive to an industry to make its products safer, and reduce the risks associated with the use of their products.  Additionally, the liability process can force manufacturers to release internal documents regarding the known risks associated with product use - as occurred with dramatic effect with suits brought against the tobacco industry.  The liability process can also create poor publicity for an industry or manufacturer.  In broadly restricting civil suits against the gun industry, the federal government took away a potent tool by which consumers can lobby for their safety and well-being.

Update:
On January 22, 2013, Rep. Schiff and co-sponsors (Rep. Van Hollen (D- MD), Rep. Meeks (D – NY), Rep. Cicilline (D – RI), Rep. Cartwright (D – PA), Rep.Honda (D - CA), Rep. Ellison (D- MN), Rep. Moran (D – VA), Rep. Slaughter (D – NY), Rep. McGovern (D – MA), Rep. Norton (D – Wash. DC), and Rep. Serrano (D – NY)) introduced H.R. 332, the Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act, in the US House.  The purpose of the act is “To ensure that those injured by firearms have access to the same civil remedies as those injured by any other product and are not restricted from bringing suits based on statutes and common law theories of liability in State and Federal court.”  If I am reading the language of the bill correctly, it appears as if the bill seeks to nullify the all of the PLCAA: “In General- An action against a manufacturer, seller, or trade association for damages or relief resulting from an alleged defect or alleged negligence with respect to a product, or conduct that would be actionable under State common or statutory law in the absence of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, shall not be dismissed by a court on the basis that the action is for damages resulting from, or for relief from, the criminal, unlawful, or volitional use of a qualified product.”

The bill was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, and no further action on the bill has been taken since it was introduced.  

The Daily Kos Firearms Law and Policy group studies actions for reducing firearm deaths and injuries in a manner that is consistent with the current Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment. We also cover the many positive aspects of gun ownership, including hunting, shooting sports, and self-defense.

To see our list of original and republished diaries, go to the Firearms Law and Policy diary list. Click on the ♥ or the word "Follow" next to our group name to add our posts to your stream, and use the link next to the heart to send a message to the group if you have a question or would like to join.

We have adopted Wee Mama's and akadjian's guidance on communicating.  But most important, be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.

TAGS:FLAP

Originally posted to Firearms Law and Policy on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 09:00 AM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA and Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA).

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (17+ / 0-)

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 09:00:13 AM PST

  •  Good nt (4+ / 0-)

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 09:07:18 AM PST

  •  A measured roll back is something I support. (14+ / 0-)

    Malfunctioning products should be the responsibility of the manufacturer- firearms are no exception.

    That said, remember how this immunity came about:

    Suing a manufacturer for criminal/neglectful misuse of a product- with the express and stated intention of putting every manufacturer of the product out of business, was asking for just this extreme a response. Likewise, I think I'm justified in questioning the motives of those advocating this bill, given this issue's history...

    Either way, of course, this roll back doesn't have a chance in hell. But a partial rollback of protections is certainly justified.

  •  Absolutely not. (9+ / 0-)

    While I don't particularly approve of special liability restrictions for gun companies, liability needs reform regarding proximal cause of the actual harm.

    Strict product liability is a legal fiction and should be prohibited in the entire country.

    The PLCAA basically prohibits junk lawsuits for the purposes of legal extortion.

    •  What is a "junk lawsuit"? And who decides? (4+ / 0-)

      It is interesting to me that the gun industry gets to in this case decide what is and what is not a junk lawsuit.

      What exactly is a "junk lawsuit"?  The cynic in me suggests that a "junk lawsuit" is any lawsuit in which you are the defendant.  And of course, legitimate, necessary, and in the service of the greater good lawsuits are one in which you are the plaintive.

      Tell us why the makers and sellers of guns deserve special protections under the law that the makers and sellers of other consumer goods to not also enjoy.

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 09:48:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  They have no special protection from product (17+ / 0-)

        liability.  Your entire diary is premised on a falsehood.

        They are immune from being sued for the actions of others taken with their lawfully obtained products...just like Ford, Toyota and Sony...

        Unless the product itself is faulty/defective and they sell it anyway or if they sell it illegally, then they are just as liable as any company.

        Odd how you attempt to make this seem as if they have complete freedom from product liability lawsuits.....If they make a product that in normal legal use blows up, they are liable...if you cram a steel bar in the barrel and pull the trigger they aren't....they also aren't responsible when a gun the manufacturer sold to a distributor 10 years ago is stolen and used in a crime. Just like any other business.....

        Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
        I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
        Emiliano Zapata

        by buddabelly on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 10:12:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The gun industry didn't decide, Congress did.... (13+ / 0-)

        .... you can still sue the gun company if your pistol blows up in your face due to a manufacturing defect.  What you can't do is sue them because a third party used their product unlawfully.

        We had a local ambulance chaser try to sue Gander Mountain after the Binghamton shootings, claiming that they were negligent because they sold the shooter the firearms he used.  This is in spite of the fact that the shooter held a valid NYS Pistol License and by all accounts the only thing "odd" about him prior to his break was the fact that he had poor English skills.

        The suit was tossed under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, and the ambulance chaser compelled to pay Gander Mountain's legal fees, a happy ending to an otherwise sordid affair.

        There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

        by Crookshanks on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 10:12:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And congress got some help (5+ / 0-)

          Yes, congress wrote the law.  

          But the idea to have such a law and the provisions in it largely came from the gun industry itself.

          Just like how we think it is a bad thing for the coal industry to suggest how laws regarding the mining of coal should be written, or having the petroleum industry decide how much spilled oil is damaging to marine life, it is also a bad idea to have the gun industry writing the regulations on consumer protections from dangerous products.

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 10:37:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  This is misleading at best and lying at worst. (5+ / 0-)
            it is also a bad idea to have the gun industry writing the regulations on consumer protections from dangerous products.
            The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms act has nothing to do with consumer protections.  As repeatedly stated you can still sue for a defective productive that causes injury.
            But the idea to have such a law and the provisions in it largely came from the gun industry itself.
            Actually it came from the RKBA community, of which the gun industry is only a part.  People saw attempts to bankrupt gun companies through frivolous lawsuits and responded accordingly.  We're not about to let you effectively negate our gun rights by making it prohibitively expensive to manufacture and sell firearms, which is exactly what would happen if the industry was subjected to a torrent of frivolous lawsuits.

            There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

            by Crookshanks on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 11:49:03 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Interesting prediction, there? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Glen The Plumber

              There are many of us who support the individual right to keep and bear arms as interpreted in Heller & McDonald.  IANAL but as far as I understand it, the Heller decision says the 2A protects the RKBA to lawful self defense of hearth and home.

              We're not about to let you effectively negate our gun rights by making it prohibitively expensive to manufacture and sell firearms,
              Suppose your absurd prediction were to come true? Why would that be bad?

              Are the 300 million guns already in circulation not sufficient for use in lawful self defense? (Rhetorical question)

              "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

              by LilithGardener on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 12:35:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Are you infering that it would be good? (5+ / 0-)

                That exercising a right get expensive? We always claim that rights seem to be for the 1%, no reason for this to be one as well?

                It is ok that ID is required for voting? Even if the ID is free? Hells no.

                •  No, not at all nt (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Glen The Plumber

                  "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                  by LilithGardener on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 01:06:24 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  The commonly asserted notion (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Glen The Plumber

                  that the 2A protects a right to have any gun I want, any time I want, received from anyone who wants to give it to me... is fair point to challenge.

                  "Rhetorical question" in my comment above means my question is not about any of us personally.

                  Consider a hypothetical: (I don't own a revolver)
                  If it's about self defense, and handguns are the most commonly chosen weapon used for personal self defense, why isn't my 67 year old revolver good enough? An heirloom FFL license costing $30/3 years is all it takes for me to be able to pass my fully functional self defense gun, an heirloom gun, on to the next generation. A passing on that happens once per generation for each heirloom gun.

                  In that case how is a single background check/$30 fee a violation of anyone's rights?

                  IMO, the RKBA for the purpose of self defense is real.

                  I'm asserting the FACT that there are sufficient guns already in circulation to meet the needs of every legal person who wants to exercise their 2A rights, many times over.

                  Guns are durable goods. If the gun industry stopped making new guns tomorrow, it's not clear that anyone would be unable to buy a gun for self-defense.


                  Moderation:
                  Attempting to change the subject is a diversion attempt. You can try to make accusations about about my support for civil rights, but that's just another obvious attempt to change the subject to focus on me, personally. I'll ignore both of those attempts to personalize the issue.

                  "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                  by LilithGardener on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 01:26:41 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Nobody here has ever asserted that notion. (5+ / 0-)

                    So this claim is a strawman argument.  I've not seen the NRA or the GOA assert this notion either.

                    The commonly asserted notion
                    that the 2A protects a right to have any gun I want, any time I want, received from anyone who wants to give it to me... is fair point to challenge.

                    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

                    by Crookshanks on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 02:00:00 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  My rhetorical question in response to your comment (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Glen The Plumber, TheFern

                      I thought you raised an interesting point, so I responded to it.

                      You wrote:

                      Actually it came from the RKBA community, of which the gun industry is only a part.  People saw attempts to bankrupt gun companies through frivolous lawsuits and responded accordingly.  We're not about to let you effectively negate our gun rights by making it prohibitively expensive to manufacture and sell firearms, which is exactly what would happen if the industry was subjected to a torrent of frivolous lawsuits.  [http://www.dailykos.com/...]
                      I replied:
                      Interesting prediction, there? (0+ / 0-)
                      There are many of us who support the individual right to keep and bear arms as interpreted in Heller & McDonald.  IANAL but as far as I understand it, the Heller decision says the 2A protects the RKBA to lawful self defense of hearth and home.
                      We're not about to let you effectively negate our gun rights by making it prohibitively expensive to manufacture and sell firearms,
                      Suppose your absurd prediction were to come true? Why would that be bad?

                      Are the 300 million guns already in circulation not sufficient for use in lawful self defense? (Rhetorical question)
                       [bold added to my prior comment

                      If a shoe doesn't fit you...

                                                       ... then you're not Cindarella.

                      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                      by LilithGardener on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 02:22:49 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  They are not, they are durable but they do wear (5+ / 0-)

                        and rust and get abused, I've seen some horrible examples of a flood and it's aftermath. Granted with proper care they can last several lifetimes, the good ones at least.  Many don't get good care unfortunately.  I hate to see fine machinery ruined by neglect.

                        Not to mention that there are many different types of firearms included in that number and there would not be what was wanted available when it was wanted in short order.

                        Not even counting population growth and the recent surges in NICS and CCW applications, recent as in 10 years or so.

                        Stopping manufacture would do to ordinary arms what the Hughes Amendment did to full auto firearms.

                        Not a better way to guarantee that only the very rich and their hired help will have the actual right to keep and bear no matter what the paper still says.  Not in my lifetime I hope. Orwell was right

                        “That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”

                        ― George Orwell

                        Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
                        I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
                        Emiliano Zapata

                        by buddabelly on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 04:05:54 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Are you asserting that there are many... (0+ / 0-)

                          guns that are stored improperly?

                          Is tgat what you meant to say, or did I mistake your comment?

                          "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                          by LilithGardener on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 09:39:52 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  improperly if you want them to last lifetimes, not (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kasoru, theatre goon

                            nesc improperly as in unsafe, just not properly protected from the elements and depending on the manufacturer, they can deteriorate pretty quickly if not properly stored...

                            I just picked up a Chinese knockoff coach gun for cowboy action shooting...my brother bought it new and it was stored here in Arizona its whole short life, less than 3 years old,  yet the rust got it so bad I had to use a sanding block to get the cancer out and stop it. It was way past steel wool, now I need to parkerize it if I want it to last.......It was in a safe with desiccant the whole time but some Chinese steel, while strong enough for firearms use, is very rust prone.  A fingerprint will eat through the metal in a few years.

                            They might have a trigger lock or be in a safe, but without a good rust preventative, in most of the country,  a cheap gun will be a worthless hunk of rust within a few years.....Here in Arizona, we are lucky on this for the most part.

                            If getting put away for a while though, even here,  they need a good coat of a high quality rust preventative, not wd-40 or the like.....I use a homemade preservative-cleaner-oil called "Ed's Red" myself but there's lots of decent commercial formulations available.

                            Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
                            I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
                            Emiliano Zapata

                            by buddabelly on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 10:13:08 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Had a barrel rust out- (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            buddabelly, theatre goon

                            was trap shooting, and did not have time to clean it after a few rounds. Forgot that I had not cleaned it and put it in storage. Came back a few years longer and oops.. Was a Winchester so replacement barrels were easy to get but almost cheaper to get a new one for the work that had to be done on the trigger box.

                            So properly and safely stored, but turned useless.

                          •  yup this was on the bbl and luckily only the (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon

                            outside...took all the bluing off and put some fine scratches in the metal I can polish out when the time is to refinish...I'm going to try to home Park it or maybe black oxide...A good buddy is a plater by trade and knows how to set up home tanks to do fun stuff.....

                            I caught this one in time but would never have done the deal had I bothered to look at it first...silly me, I assumed my bro was watching for rust in his collection....man he was a busy beaver for a few days when I showed him it cleaning and greasing up all the rest of his stuff....

                            Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
                            I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
                            Emiliano Zapata

                            by buddabelly on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 11:15:44 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  The question doesn't deserve an answer. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        theatre goon, FrankRose

                        You can't claim on one hand to support RKBA while on the other hand dismissing the impact of bankrupting gun manufacturers.

                        Never mind the fact that thousands of people are employed by them and would be out of jobs if the Brady bunch had their way and had successfully litigated them to death.

                        There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

                        by Crookshanks on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 05:25:16 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Let's review: Very simple math & logic (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          reasonablegunsplz

                          Rejection of a lousy argument is not rejection of Heller & McDonald.

                          We can reject the claim that
                          a) the gun manufacturing companies will go bankrupt if they face litigation or regulation. I assert they won't.

                          We can reject the "hair-on-fire" claim that
                          b) if gun manufacturing was stopped tomorrow, individuals would NOT be able to express their CIVIL RIGHT to right to keep and bear arms for self defense.

                          1. 300 million guns and approximately 100 millions households.
                          2. Approximately 35% of adults live in a household with guns.
                          3. That leaves 65 million households WITHOUT guns.

                          Simple math leads to 35 million households AND
                          300 million guns, OR

                          about 7-8 guns/household on average.

                          I repeat: Gun manufacturing could stop tomorrow and there would be plenty of guns for the next today AND for the generation to express their RKBA.

                          "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                          by LilithGardener on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 06:03:24 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  That was the stated goal of the Brady Campaign and (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose, DavidMS, theatre goon, CarlosJ

                            others who were behind the suits that inspired the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

                            We can reject the claim that
                            a) the gun manufacturing companies will go bankrupt if they face litigation or regulation. I assert they won't.
                            Whether or not they would have succeeded is irrelevant.  The suits would have driven up the cost of firearms, at the very least, because their legal defense monies had to come from somewhere.  Guess what businesses do with increased costs?  They pass them along to the consumer.

                            One also doesn't even need to be a fan of RKBA to approve of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.  I'm not aware of anyone who thinks it's a good idea to clog up our already burdened court system with frivolous lawsuits, except perhaps for the lawyers bringing them.

                            There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

                            by Crookshanks on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 06:29:08 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The claim is still ridiculous (0+ / 0-)

                            You claimed that people's civil rights are in jeopardy, and I dispute that. It is ridiculous.

                            It's simple math and logic, nothing more.

                            Anyone with elementary school math can see that there are more than enough firearms in circulation, right now, to service the self defense needs for an entire generation, probably more.

                            Your lousy argument and leap across the logic gap is still just that.  

                            Whether anybody defends that gun industry law or rejects the law does not matter. About the group you disparage? Just becaue a group you hate has a goal doesn't mean any one has to believe it will succeed.

                            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                            by LilithGardener on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 06:43:49 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't think you understand the basic concept (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon, CarlosJ, buddabelly

                            of supply and demand very well.

                            There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

                            by Crookshanks on Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 05:43:19 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  what makes you think that those of us who (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon

                            currently own the 300 million firearms in circulation will give any up so

                            the generation to express their RKBA.
                            can happen?  Why would we unless there was considerable profit motive and that's in the grey area of legality....Why I most often trade back and forth rather than sell one I don't want like or need...

                            Where is this next generation of people supposed to get their guns from?  And what if they want polymer pistols for ease of maintenance while the majority of the current population are steel or some type of metal.

                            What you are talking about not only won't work on a practical level, it would do to the Democratic party what Republicans can't....flat kill it in the intermountain west and a lot of the west and northwest....not to mention the fact that we are so close to returning Texas to the fold and with Texas, we have a huge advantage just on sheer size.

                            Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
                            I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
                            Emiliano Zapata

                            by buddabelly on Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 11:54:53 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ummm, you love your grandchildren? (0+ / 0-)

                            It was a hypothetical, challenging the hair on fire claims.

                            If it was really about a need for self defense people would make sure to care for their guns, and would share their best guns with the next generation, to make sure that their grandchildren are not orphaned.

                            Your reply showcases the fact of the matter precisely, it's all  about marketing and profit. Convincing people they need to have the latest model, and you tap your easiest customers, your repeat buyers. There will always be a market for new and better products. Fears for the demise of gun manufacturing are pure paranoia.

                            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                            by LilithGardener on Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 12:28:52 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  you really ought to look into just how many (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon

                            different firearms companies have already gone under in the last 30 years, or have consolidated into remchestermarlin etc...

                            Many many of the companies manufacturing newer modern sporting rifles are very very small companies, esp those who do custom work.

                            Yes with the companies protected from ridiculous suits blaming them for something someone 4 steps down the line does, they will survive and maybe even thrive.

                            With that protection removed which is something no other class of manufacturing faces no matter how dangerous the object, even remchesterlin might go under.

                            I only have 2 grandbabies and they will be fine, what about the grandbabies of those who do not have the situation in hand now?  

                            It's nothing but slow prohibition and you float it to see how it flies, not as some hypothetical to prove our response....

                            Nice try though  

                            No one fears the demise of gun manufacturing as the law sits which is what makes your statement funny...It's only if the prohibitionists get their way there will be problems.

                            And trust me there's lots of us Dems who will do our damnedest to prevent political suicide......

                            Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
                            I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
                            Emiliano Zapata

                            by buddabelly on Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 01:47:58 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  Automobiles are durable goods. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    buddabelly, Crookshanks, CarlosJ

                    How well would eliminating their production work out?

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 02:10:33 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Why would you want to use an old tool? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    KVoimakas

                    You speak of a heirloom revolver.  In that 67 years, metallurgy and material science has advanced considerably.  A brand new semi-automatic pistol of the sort that a police agency would use would be much  preferable because it will be just as reliable if not more so, have less felt recoil and a better trigger, leading to more accurate fire.  

                    I recently got to handle and shoot two .357 Magnum Revolvers one from the 60s and the other new production.  The new one had a smoother trigger, grips that adsorbed recoil better and better sights in addition to having a 7-chamber cylinder as opposed to a 6-chamber cylinder.  

                    When I think of heirloom firearms, I think of single shot 20 gauge shotguns, .32 S&W long break-top revolvers and .22 CB rifles that you take out after dinner to show friends as conversation pieces and would never rely on for self defense.  

                    I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

                    by DavidMS on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 07:46:28 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

                      There will always be a market for newer and better products.
                      Predictions of gun industry demise are greatly exagerated.

                      I completely agree, David.

                      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                      by LilithGardener on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 09:52:50 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Not when people start hoarding them (4+ / 0-)

                And the price skyrockets because none are being produced.  

                "I'm a progressive man and I like progressive people" Peter Tosh

                by Texas Lefty on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 01:07:11 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  He didn't say that, HJB. (9+ / 0-)

        He said he's rather see the Protections widened across other industries, instead of reducing them from the gun industry. I agree for the most part.

        Let's say a guy jumps behind an RX counter, steals mess and gives them to someone else, who promptly OD's and dies. Is the drug maker responsible? I believe this is analogous to suing a gun manufacturer for someone obtaining a firearm illegally, or stealing one, and then doing harm with it.

        While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

        by GoGoGoEverton on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 10:22:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, GoGo, the drug maker isn't, on the facts... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber, LilithGardener

          ... you give. And neither, in all likelihood, is the pharmacy under your facts. That's not an analogy.

          2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

          by TRPChicago on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 10:41:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes and no. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            happymisanthropy

            Presumably, the plaintiff's theory of liability would be a little more complex... say, alleging that the drug manufacturer contributed to societal drug abuse problems that caused the incident via their advertising or making their drugs easy to get high off of.

            •  No, M. GoGo's hypo was a thief stealing product. (5+ / 0-)

              It's not that some plaintiff's lawyer wouldn't "sue everyone in sight", I agree, but it wouldn't take most trial judges very long to drop the drug manufacturer from the same suit as the thief and/or the store or pharmacy (Negligent security or protection of inventory? A stretch, but might keep 'em in for a while.)

              If you're gonna sue the manufacturer for contributing to societal abuse due to their advertising claims, go sue them for it. Probably not an unwarranted lawsuit. In any event, you wouldn't want to muddy that cause of action with thefts. The plaintiff probably would need a few injured users, so find ones who got the product legally and avoid a lot of distracting defenses.

              2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

              by TRPChicago on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 11:20:36 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  HJB - gun makers are still subject to standard (10+ / 0-)

        product liability concerning the manufacturing and reliable functioning of their products. The law preventing the gun makers from lawsuits that were the result of people using their products, particularly in criminal activity. The gun makers are still subject to all the same legal standards by their customers, the gun buyers. They aren't responsible for the acts of their customers which is where the courts were headed before this law. I have never owned a gun, but in my view the PLCAA was a timely and necessary piece of bipartisan legislation. The anti-gun lobby was planning to use backdoor liability lawsuits to drive gun makers out of business.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 10:24:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Historical Perspective - Lawsuits against tobacco (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber, LilithGardener

    There are some analogies between lawsuits against the gun industry and lawsuits against the tobacco industry.

    Like the gun industry, the tobacco industry makes a product that is dangerous to human health.  Back in the 1990s, there were a series of lawsuits against tobacco companies that did serious damage to the tobacco industry.

    Initially, the lawsuits came from cigarette users who stated they got cancer, heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, or other serious medical problems from using the tobacco product.  These suits were initially dismissed as "frivolous" or "junk lawsuits" by the tobacco industry.  Many of these earlier lawsuits were denied.

    But as part of the lawsuit process, tobacco manufacturers were sometimes forced to release their internal business documents.  And some of those documents revealed that the tobacco industry had known for years their product was harmful (even as the tobacco industry was claiming their products were safe to use), and that cigarette manufacturers had manipulated the manufacturing process to make the product even more addicting (and thereby increasing sales and profits).

    Now, many states got involved.  The states got involved because tax-payers were paying for the medical treatment of people who had been made sick by tobacco use.  The states were suing the tobacco companies to recoup some of the medical costs those states had been paying.

    With secret damning documents now available to the public, and big-gun legal teams getting involved, the tobacco companies started settling these suits instead of fighting them.  The tobacco companies paid billions in fines and awards.  New regulations on tobacco sales went into place.  And public opinion shifted against the tobacco companies; many smokers stopped, and the tobacco industry suffered larges losses of business and revenues.

    Yet, despite all this, the tobacco industry is alive and well today.  It was never sued out of business.

    The analogies with the gun industry are plentiful: the gun industry makes a product that is damaging to the health of consumers; the tax-payers are forced to pay for much of the costs of the medical care of people who have been injured by the products of the gun industry; many individuals and groups would like to sue the gun industry.

    There are also big differences.  The gun industry has never claimed their products are safe; indeed, the lethality of guns is often used to market the products to consumers.  And of course, the gun industry was taking notes while the cigarette industry was getting hammered in court, and took steps to make sure they could never be sued in the same way.

    I am sure the tobacco companies wish they could have had the same protections granted the gun industry.

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 10:25:18 AM PST

    •  I don't think they are analogous at all. (12+ / 0-)

      First, guns can be used without causing harm; does not apply to regular use of cigarettes.

      2nd, the tobacco industry for DECADES advertised their product as not only not harmful, but HEALTHY. Gun industry has never said 'shooting people is healthy'.

      While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 10:30:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, there are differences, but guns are ... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glen The Plumber, LilithGardener

        ... inherently dangerous when used as designed and directed, with whatever safety features the makers decided to put in it or on it ... or not.

        There is an intervening user, true. (Although many reports of "gun fails" do make it sound as if anyone but the shooter is at fault.) The user is either using that inherently dangerous product as intended and firing it or "accidentally" using it as designed and it fires.

        2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

        by TRPChicago on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 10:51:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Firearms are anything but dangerous under your (6+ / 0-)

          conditions:

          Yes, there are differences, but guns are ... (0+ / 0-)
          ... inherently dangerous when used as designed and directed, with whatever safety features the makers decided to put in it or on it ... or not.
          If you follow the directions, you would never have a negligent discharge. The only other times you'd hurt someone is A. criminally or B. in self defense.
          •  KV, guns are safe when you load them and pull... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Glen The Plumber, LilithGardener

            ... the trigger?

            And that aside, do you see no space at all between "negligence" and criminality? (The law does.)

            2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

            by TRPChicago on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 11:28:02 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  All those national trap/skeep (8+ / 0-)

              and other gun competitions- so many deaths? The Military uses live bodies for training new recruits? Or not so much. So ya- when used in a non-criminal fashion pretty safe.

              And negligence is criminal btw before bringing up the accident porn that is the gun-fail series.

            •  Yes. They are safe as long as you follow the (6+ / 0-)

              directions, which is a part of your statement.

              I'm not arguing negligence being criminal or not. I'm saying that if you followed the directions, there WON'T be negligent discharges.

              •  Good argument for a training requirement, KV (2+ / 0-)

                Guns don't kill people? True
                Guns don't drop themselves? True
                Guns don't just "go off" by themselves? True

                Guns don't come with competency built in. Seems there is no way around proficiency testing to own.

                Proof of basic firearm mechanics and proficiency testing on the same or closely related model. Giving your son a hunting rifle? Train and proficiency testing on a hunting rifle with the same bolt action.

                E.g. want to own a magazine fed pistol? Proof of safe handling skills. Anyone could teach you for free, or you could take a certified course, but you have to prove it upon purchase.

                FFL would check off, did the customer successfully execute the following (without any assistance from the FFL):

                1. Safe handling while removing gun from a gun safe?
                2. Safe placement while loading magazine?
                3. Safe handling while inserting magazine & chambering a round?
                4. Knowledge of what to do if unsuccessful (gun/magazine  jam, fails to position a round in the chamber)?
                5. Safe handling while changing magazines.
                6. Safe unloading?
                7. Safe clearance? (Verification the gun is unloaded)
                8. Safe disassembly for cleaning?
                9. Safe return of the gun to the gun safe? (Safe storage when not carried for self defense)

                That would present one barrier against straw buyers.

                "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                by LilithGardener on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 01:04:44 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  KV, are you saying that Glock packages with ... (3+ / 0-)

                ... its guns instructions on how to avoid "negligent" discharges?

                Hunters I talk to - some are also sport shooters - believe absolutely that guns are dangerous instruments when used, period. They do not become less dangerous when used "properly".

                Gun manufacturers put into the stream of commerce a designedly dangerous machine. I doubt very much that all the ways a gun can be negligently used (aside from any criminality) are covered in the "directions" packaged with the gun.

                In fact, many states have so expanded their product liability laws that users of non-inherently dangerous machines (lawn mowers come to mind) can be negligent as hell and still recover from a manufacturer no matter how negligent the user was. And degrees of negligence and assumption of risk may make little, sometimes No, difference in jurisdictions that facilitate consumer litigation.

                2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                by TRPChicago on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 01:23:18 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The firearm isn't dangerous. (7+ / 0-)

                  The user is dangerous.

                  Last time I checked, all my brand new firearms come with a manual that explains how to use the firearm safely. Glock included.

                  The three basic rules of firearm safety are:

                  ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot.

                  ALWAYS keep your firearm pointed in a safe direction.

                  ALWAYS keep your firearm unloaded until ready to use.

                  That pretty much takes care of negligence doesn't it? Unless you disobey the rules, you'll not have a problem.

                  •  We'd have a lot fewer product liability cases ... (3+ / 0-)

                    ... if that's all it took - three basic rules - to relieve a manufacturer of liability for a product. Under your principle, nothing would be dangerous if used only as a manufacturer directed. The law has developed otherwise over the course of several decades, yet firearm manufacturers have managed to relieve themselves of liability most others have.

                    I think we're not going to agree on this aspect of manufacturer responsibility, for firearms or other far less inherently dangerous products.

                    2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                    by TRPChicago on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 02:43:35 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  and every Co will happily send you a free copy (5+ / 0-)

                    of the owners manual of any firearm they ever made with 40 pages of lawyer warnings and 5 about the gun...heh...

                    Most will also send free locks or new keys to a guns internal lock at no charge.

                    Also, the firearms co's are about the best in honoring warranty of any out there in my exp....most just "fix it" whatever "it" is and with no fanfare or hoohaw...just new parts in the mail for free....

                    Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
                    I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
                    Emiliano Zapata

                    by buddabelly on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 03:09:58 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  The user is dangerous. (2+ / 0-)

                    How do you reconcile that fact to a claim that training should not be required?

                    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                    by LilithGardener on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 03:11:18 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The same way I don't support testing for (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      theatre goon, CarlosJ

                      the exercise of other constitutionally enshrined civil rights.

                      •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

                        Just take voting, if guns were like voting, there are lots of built in tests of competency along with time/manner/place restrictions on voting.

                        Didn't know you had to register? No vote for you. You have 4 years to register if you want to exercise your right to vote next time.

                        Go to the wrong polling place? No vote for you. You have 4 years to learn how to find your correct polling place if you want to exercise your right to vote next time.

                        Screw up your absentee ballot? No vote for you. You have 4 years to learn how to do it right if you want to exercise your right to vote next time.

                        If guns are like votes, should Dave Evans, be sanctioned by 4 year loss of the RKBA? After which he can try again to be a responsible CCW holder?

                        "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                        by LilithGardener on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 07:30:21 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  There is no literacy test for voting. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          theatre goon, CarlosJ

                          There is no English test for freedom of speech.
                          There is no writing test for freedom of press.
                          There is no competency test for freedom of religion. (Which would be a catch-22.)
                          There is no house exam (certification) to be free from illegal searches.

                        •  Oh, and if you don't think there are restrictions (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          theatre goon

                          on the usage of firearms...well, I'll disagree.

                          I can't carry in a hospital, sports arena, bar, or on federal property (not an exhaustive list). I can't even carry without a class and certification. I can't use my firearm when it could be a danger to someone unless I am defending me or mine. I can't shoot late at night on the range, which was built specifically to allow the shooting of firearms.

                          So yeah, screw up the class, you don't get to legally carry.
                          Screw up any of those other laws, have criminal charges (and possibly civil) set against you.

                    •  Because users aren't *inherently* dangerous. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      theatre goon, KVoimakas

                      40-45% of US households own a firearm. That's approx 40 million homes.

                      Of that 40,000,000 we have a very, very small percentage who commit acts of negligence each year. Without any common training mandate in place.

                      How can this be so if people are oh so very dangerous.

                      •  Thanks for backing me up, Neo (0+ / 0-)

                        I agree.

                        My subject line "The user is dangerous." should have had quotes, since I was responding to KV's claim that The user is dangerous."

                        I don't think people are dangerous, and I agree with you that gun owners aren't inherently dangerous either.

                        "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                        by LilithGardener on Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 09:39:54 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Should've been more specific. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          theatre goon, Neo Control

                          In a situation where a firearm is used in a dangerous manner, it's not the firearm which is dangerous, it's the user. The user is what makes the firearm dangerous in these situations.

                          •  "Guns don't kill people..." (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener

                            Or do they? The Phd's in criminology, as reflected and summarized in the June 2013 CDC product, see the gun and/or the person holding it during a gun incident as an "agent" of the casualty, one of three necessary contributors. Setting gunblame aside, if people kill 31,000 Americans each year, they are dangerous.

                            From NeoControl
                            Because users aren't inherently dangerous.
                            Of that 40,000,000 we have a very, very small percentage who commit acts of negligence each year. Without any common training mandate in place.
                            Not so fast. About 700-800 annual "accidents" are documented, but many mishaps are presently logged as homicides. Be that as it may, your statement only covers negligence, not intentional harm by gunfire. Something, either the presence of guns or human behavior, or the combination, is a big problem, no skating around it, please.

                            How dangerous are people and guns when put together?  Dangerous enough to cause 3.5 deaths/hr, and to injure another 9 additional persons/hr. (using 2009 & 2012 injury figures here, 78,000 gun injuries).

                            Forget behavior mod, the scientists have. The solutions will come from some other combination of factors.

                            It seems to me that we humans take turns being dummies.

                            by reasonablegunsplz on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 04:19:59 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, they don't. nt (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon
                          •  So, if we make up new words... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas

                            ...such as "gunblame," our nonsensical arguments make more sense?

                            Ridicusilly.

                            "No amount of belief makes something a fact." --James Randi

                            by theatre goon on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 05:13:32 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  Almost the same rules I learned (5+ / 0-)

                    All guns are loaded.

                    Do not point your weapon at anything you are not willing to destroy.

                    Keep your finger off the trigger until you are on target and have decided to fire.

                    Know your target and what is beyond it.

                    To be first in the soil, which erupts in the coil, of trees veins and grasses all brought to a boil. -- The Maxx

                    by notrouble on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 07:18:26 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  I can't speak to Glock (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  theatre goon, KVoimakas

                  But I have an FN manual that tells you how to not mishandle the gun.  I can't find the place on the Glock Website to download the manual but I am not aware of any firearms manufacturers that do not make their manuals available online.  

                  I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

                  by DavidMS on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 08:10:24 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  When used as directed... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KVoimakas, theatre goon, CarlosJ

          Here is a handgun manual:  http://www.fnhusa.com/...

          Its pretty typical for firearms manuals.  Notice the safety portion?  It was written to cover anything someone can do wrong.  

          I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

          by DavidMS on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 08:03:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  This point bears repeating (2+ / 0-)
      Yet, despite all this, the tobacco industry is alive and well today.  It was never sued out of business.
      The 5 cent bottle return fee didn't bankrupt the beverage industry.

      Regulations/taxes/product liability are not going to bankrupt the gun industry either.

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 01:38:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Product liability that includes criminal misuse (8+ / 0-)

        doesn't make sense.

        I stab someone with a REALLY sharp knife. Does the victim sue the SOG for making a really sharp knife?

        I run someone over with an unlicensed, unregistered, uninsured vehicle. Does the victim sue Toyota for making a huge battering ram on wheels?

        I set someone's house on fire using a bunch of styrofoam and gasoline. Does the victim sue Holiday and Dow Chemical?

        I shoot someone in the face. Does the victim sue Springfield for making a firearm?

        •  Is this comment out of place? nt (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          notrouble

          It has nothing to do with my comment. Did you by any chance, mean to reply to a different comment?

          "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

          by LilithGardener on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 02:38:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  no, it means that bad litigation, whether it kills (6+ / 0-)

            the majors or not is still bad litigation and should be stopped. And it would kill the little guy who supplies a disproportionate number of competition shooters by supplying the absolute best regardless of cost or some neat gadget that just makes life easier on the line or at the bench.

            There are any number of items that used improperly cause extreme damage and harm, even death...

            Here in Tucson our first murders of the year were a group of 3 mowed down with a car in the early morning hours after the New Years Eve party wound down.  There's absolutely no call to blame Ford or the dealership they bought it at.  There should be none.

            In the law, as it is, if a dealer or manufacturer illegally sells their firearms in any of many ways, ie they knowingly sell to dealers smuggling them to NYC,  they are legally liable for damage while that doesn't apply to Ford.  If a Narco Cowboy goes in and buys a truck with cash and they just don't report it, an illegal base transaction, neither the dealer and esp not Ford would get sued when said narco cowboy mows someone down in said truck.

            If a sale is legal, FFL runs a NICS, files the 4473, gets the go, sells gun, logs gun out of bound book.  Unless he knew or had reason to know that the background check was wrong he has no liability and should not have as he followed every step of the process.  Same with the manufacturer, as long as all sales to distributors are legit, why should they have anything at all to do with it?

            Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
            I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
            Emiliano Zapata

            by buddabelly on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 03:05:27 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Why? Because of untoward influence. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Glen The Plumber, LilithGardener

              Let's review.  The gun manufacturers are behind the gun lobby, which is behind the NRA and SAF, which are behind the freewheeling gun legislation, which has eliminated discretion on who can get guns, and keep guns.  One example: "shall issue" principles currently prevent the confiscation of firearms from total nutjobs.

              The gun industry is a contributor to (and instigator of) the damage being done, in many ways.

              Why should they have legal immunity for this?

              GOOD THREAD

              It seems to me that we humans take turns being dummies.

              by reasonablegunsplz on Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 04:21:56 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You forget the millions of members of both (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Kasoru, CarlosJ

                the NRA and the SAF.

                Shall issue principles keep local LEOs (or even state LEOs) from turning the carry system of their state into "Are you well connected? Are you a friend? Are you a contributor to my campaign (sheriff)?" You say discretion like it's a good thing. It's not.

                Those total nutjobs (love to see your definition on that by the way) have the same rights we all do until they're convicted of a crime, are adjudicated mentally ill, or (usually) have a PPO taken out against them.

                •  Okay, a story about a nutjob for ya. (0+ / 0-)

                  KV, in Seattle we had four people killed at Cafe Racer by an increasingly mentally imbalanced individual. His father had gone to authorities to get his weapons taken away, and was told "There is nothing we can do."  He had no trouble getting a CCP for...six handguns.

                  My personal friend Larry Adams was the guy in the cafe that day who threw barstools at the shooter. "Feet first," he commented to me. As he did that, three others forced the door open (against a body blocking the door) and got out.  Larry was left on a bloody floor deciding which of three dying souls to comfort in their last moments. It messed him up.

                  KV, a serious question.  Do you pro-gun blokes ever pause to tally the damage done by such unrestricted access to guns?

                  It seems to me that we humans take turns being dummies.

                  by reasonablegunsplz on Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 03:13:46 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I have put forth my suggestions to reduce (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    theatre goon

                    the damage done by violent crime in general and firearm related violent crime specifically. To say there's unrestricted access to firearms is just plain wrong.

                    •  Wrong? Did you open the link? (0+ / 0-)

                      You failed to answer my question. Do "pro-rights" types ever pause to tally the damage?  Seriously, try to just respect the people cleaning up the blood, mate. And I'm new, please provide a link to your safety proposals, which you have referred to 2X.

                      Here's another link, dialing in my definition of "nutjobs":

                      Jared Loughner was excluded from military service after a poor psych evaluation. Nothing was put into the NICS by the military to prevent firearm ownership. Aaron Alexis was known to be mentally disturbed by local law enforcement officers. Nothing was done to seize his weapons or prevent him prom purchasing more weapons. James Egan Holmes had psychological problems and was seeing a psychiatrist, yet he was able to purchase firearms. Adam Lanza was also mentally disturbed, though he didn't purchase any firearms, he stole them from his mother.
                      The topic is unrestricted access to firearms.  WRT suicides and children, what about the gun lobby's open interference with the medical community?  Not cool IMO.

                      It seems to me that we humans take turns being dummies.

                      by reasonablegunsplz on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 11:05:06 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        theatre goon

                        Suggestions

                        First, I love how you put pro-rights in quotes.
                        Second, I have put thought into different things that could mitigate the damage pertaining to violent crime. So there's the answer to your question about the damage "tally" as you put it. I disagree with you framing which brings me to
                        Third, there isn't "unrestricted" access to firearms.
                        Fourth, did your link go where you meant it to? I didn't see text about interference with the medical community, just a bunch of links.

    •  Advertising (5+ / 0-)

      Like the cigarette companies, they know how to target certain consumers. Virginia "Slims" targeting girls who could use cigarettes to help them lose weight, the Marlboro man targeting men who wanted to be macho. Sophisticated looking actors and actresses looking sexy and having fun smoking those cigarettes.

      Gun manufacturers target those women who want a small, "cute" gun that will fit in a purse, maybe a pearl handle. Or young and maybe not so young women who saw Linda Hamilton in Terminator or Angelina Jolie in Tomb Raider or maybe she has a guy friend who tells her that there's nothing sexier than a woman carrying a big gun. And there are ads for that. And they use the lethality and the cosmetics of a big, tough looking gun to appeal to testosterone driven young men and convince young men and not so young men that a real man carries a big gun. And they market real guns as fun toys.  They even have ads that target children.

      And like the cigarette companies, they create the "need", the addiction. They convince people through fear that they "need" a gun and the more guns they sell, the more apt they are to get into the hands of people who shouldn't have them which makes more people think they need a gun. They need an arsenal.

      They convince people they need guns without regard to the danger it presents to that individual and the society around them. As did the cigarette companies.

  •  Thank you for reporting on this stalled law (3+ / 0-)

    I didn't know anything about this bill, or the law that was passed in 2005, so I appreciate your bringing it to the  attention of DailyKos readers.

    If there are any other diaries that covered the bill, people should feel free to post links. Thx.

    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

    by LilithGardener on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 12:23:22 PM PST

  •  Special Protections for Guns (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LilithGardener

    We should roll back all the special protections for guns.  Lawsuits, Consumer Safety Regulation, CDC violence studies, Information Embargoes from federal law enforcement agencies and a lot more.

    Mandatory Gun Insurance would provide for victims, encourage safety and not be an excessive burden on gun owners. How to do it at Gun Insurance Blog. I also make posts at Huffington as Tom Harvey.

    by guninsuranceblog on Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 08:11:45 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site