Claims against gunmaker Glock dismissed

[RamboLiberal]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

A federal appeals court dismissed damage claims against gun manufacturers Monday by the victims of a white supremacist's shooting rampage in the San Fernando Valley, saying a 2005 federal law backed by the firearms industry bars such lawsuits.

In a 2-1 ruling, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said Congress had the case in mind when it passed the law. Lawmakers did not violate the rights of victims of the 1999 shootings by limiting their right to sue federally licensed gunmakers and dealers for criminals' actions, the court said.

The 2005 law protects federally licensed gun manufacturers and sellers from liability for criminals' shootings. Two of the congressional sponsors said during debate that one case they wanted to dismiss was a suit arising from Buford Furrow's August 1999 bloodbath.

Furrow, a mentally disturbed man with neo-Nazi affiliations, took at least seven guns into a Jewish center in Granada Hills and opened fire, wounding three children, a teenager and an adult. An hour later, he fatally shot Joseph Ileto, 39, a letter carrier, in nearby Chatsworth.

-----

The suit said Glock Inc., maker of the 9mm pistol allegedly used to shoot Ileto, sold many guns to police that were unsafe to civilians and ignored government warnings about high-risk distribution channels - in this case, from a police department in Washington state through several owners to an unlicensed trader, who sold it to Furrow.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/12/BA0O17IHVV.DTL

[walnutpie]

1. Good

Companies engaged in lawful commerce should not be held liable for the criminal misuse of their products, period.

Oh, FWIW, the police ARE civilians, and Glocks are among the safest pistols in the world.

[RamboLiberal]

7. Glocks are very safe pistols if handled as one should handle

all handguns. Finger off the trigger.

Funny thing is Glocks were probably most mishandled by police especially when they were first switching over from the long heavy double action trigger pull revolvers.

Glock leg was common among cops who didn't safely holster their lighter trigger pull Glocks. That's why many police agencies went to the New York trigger or later switched to DAO semi-autos.

Those stupid stories scared me away from Glocks when I first started shooting. Now I've had 3 Glocks - great reliable handguns.

[WheelWalker]

8. Very reliable, and safe are Glocks...they will not discharge

unintentionally. However, if you place your finger on the trigger and squeeze, they will discharge. There is no safety if the operator pulls the trigger. If one intends to discharge the weapon, and operates the trigger....well then, be very careful what you ask for because it will happen.

[Dr Fate]

18. So no companies should be subject to strict product liability law suits?

Or is this an exception that is just for foreign gun manufacturers?

[NickB79]

22. If the product is defective and the defect injures/kills someone, then they should be liable

But this case involved nothing of that.

[Dr Fate]

25. Not just the product itself. Plus, how do we know any of this if it never gets to a jury?

Perhaps a jury could find a design, manufacturing or warning defect that is a proximate/actual cause of such an injury.

If it never gets to a trier of fact, then I'm stuck taking your word for it, or the NRA's word for it.

[walnutpie]

35. Because that tactic reeks of fascism

Here’s an idea, stop using the courts to trample civil rights. Stop waging a war of litigation to try and bleed dry the manufactures of a legal and safe product just because gun prohibition can not be accomplished through the legislative process.

Death by bureaucracy is not the American way. It is fascism pure and simple.

[Dr Fate]

39. This applies to ALL manufacturers of dangerous products, or just the foreign gun industry?

???

Holding a corporation liable as opposed to letting a corporation do whatever it wants amounts to "facism?"

If you say so.

[NickB79]

42. Why the references to foreign gun companies? This ruling applies just as much to US gun makers

If this were Ruger or S&W instead of Glock, would that make a difference?

[Dr Fate]

48. I thought a foreign corporation was the subject of the article.

Keep this in mind- when I post on gun threads, my main motivation is to get more information.

I'm all for private gun ownership- I just find it interesting that the gun industry is terrified of actually having to defend itself in court.

[Callisto32]

117. The purpose of strict liability in product liability cases

is to prevent manufacturers from making faulty products. In order for the maker to be found liable, the person must be using the product in a manner that a reasonable person would believe to be appropriate. If you make gun manufacturers liable for intentional, unjustified shootings with their products, you undermine the underlying policy of strict product liability. A reasonable person does not think that it is okay to shoot someone without a very high level of justification, thus a person initiating violence with a firearm does not bring it into the realm of products liability. I think this is the purpose of the statute, to clarify this point.

[walnutpie]

57. It hold true whenever the power of the court is wielded like a club

to limit civil rights.

BTW, why do you keep harping on Glock's foreign ownership? Are you a xenophobe, or do you think there are two sets of rules, one for US manufactures and one for everyone else?

[Dr Fate]

62. Suing a foreign gun manufactuer limits your civil rights- even when they are liable?

Or does your argument just presume that gun manufacturers, foreign or otherwise, are never liable for anything.

What about MY 7th Amendment rights to a civil trail with a jury?

You seem to think that millions of dollors worth of NRA attorneys would not be able to win lawsuits. I guess the NRA, the gun industry, etc is afraid that certain juries might not agree with them on certain things.

I don't see why they cant just go to court and argue their defenses like everyone else does.

Why should they advocate for their own immunity- why are they not willing to just go into court and argue facts that help their defense?

Maybe it is because they realize the facts would not be on their side?

[benEzra]

115. Glock wasn't liable by any reasonable standard.

If a drunk driver killed my family with a Honda Civic, I wouldn't sue Honda.

Look at who funded the lawsuits. Most were bankrolled by the gun-ban lobby. And note the part in the OP about Glocks being unsuitable for "civilians" to own, even though Glocks are the most popular civilian handguns in U.S. homes.

The clear intent of the suit was to limit Glock sales to Important People and exclude sales to ordinary peons like my wife, who owns and shoots a Glock 26 very competently, thanks. The law DOES allow suits based on negligence, misconduct, or defective products, but disallows the frivolous suits intended to curtail legitimate civilian sales.

[Dreamer Tatum]

40. Juries don't find such things. They merely weigh evidence.

Do you not understand this?

[Dr Fate]

44. I thought that in a trial, facts are presented to a jury.

And if the jury found enough facts to support the various elements of strict liability claim, then the corporation/distributor, etc is indeed liable.

I'll bet a jury could weigh evidence and find strict liablility, negligence, etc in any number of scenarios.

In the end, I imagine there is a reason why Republicans, the NRA and the mulitmillion dollar gun industry constantly fights for speacial treatment and immunity from lawsuits.

Maybe this is b/c the last thing they want is juries hearing all of the facts for a change.

[X_Digger]

46. If a gun is defective, you CAN sue.

Christ, what don't you understand. If a gun blows up in your hand or fails to fire when it should, you can sue.

However, if a third party uses a gun and the gun actually does what it should- propel a projectile from the barrel- what is defective?

Sue crown royal for making you late for work because you had a hangover. Retarded.

[Dr Fate]

55. So why does the NRA and the Republican industry always fight for immunity & special treatment?

I think it is because they know that the usual cute metaphors and other NRA style arguments won't work in front of many juries.

The gun industry does not think that straight up neglience theories should be applied to their actions either. Seems like they want to rig the rules so they can get special treatment ie immunity.

[X_Digger]

58. immunity from 'frivolous', 'groundless' lawsuits..

Death by litigation. Can't pass a law? Sue em out of business.

That's the 'murkin way, doncha know!

Being on the wrong end of a gun is not a defect of the gun itself.

Remington settled a class action lawsuit in the last 7-8 years over using substandard steel in some of their shotguns (they settled out of court). The legislation protecting this industry from frivolous lawsuits is not blanket immunity. True defects are still fair game.

[Dr Fate]

63. "Frivolous" according to who? Charleton Heston, a gun industry CEO, or some other Republican?

I think the Republican gun industry and the Republican NRA wants immunity b/c they dont want certain triers of facts to hear all the facts- whatever those facts may be.

Sorry, but civil suits offer citizens redress as do laws. That is why the 7th Amendment allows for them. So yeah, you might say the 7th amendment is pas of the American way.

Just b/c mulit-million dollar funded Republican lobbyists have a problem with the motivation and the possible outcome of a law suit doesnt mean that corporations deserve special immunity & treatment.


Whenever a Republican industry, lobby or advocacy group claims to be worried about "frivolous" or "groundless" lawsuits- It is often safe to assume that they are not so frivolous.

[ManiacJoe]

66. You seem very confused.

It is the text book example of frivolous to try to sue Person_A for the actions of Person_B.

If the gun is defective in design or manufacturing, feel free to sue, as you should. The federal law does not stop this.

However, the notion that a product maker is in any way responsible for the illegal use of their product by a consumer is just crazy, regardless of the product being made. The federal law rightfully stops this nonsense. The only reason this is currently applied to gun manufactures is that they are currently the only victims of such nonsense.

[Dr Fate]

71. You seemed confused, since that was not my complete argument.

I also indicated that the gun industry could be negligent in their duty of care.

In those cases, illegal use by a consumer would only be part of the picture.

What if a plainfiff had evidence that the manufactuer or distributor intended that a certain number of its guns would be used illegally? This would might be one type of case where the gun induistry should not be immune from lawsuits.

As it is, I find it interesting that the gun industry basically KNOWS that if they could not get immunity, juries would find them liable according to the facts. If this was not the case, they would gladly go to court and argue their defenses with success.

[X_Digger]

73. Not if a 'win' wasn't the actual goal..

If the goal is to make it economically unfeasible for a manufacturer to produce and sell guns, endless litigation for the win.

[Dr Fate]

75. You seemed to be worried about "the goal"- not me- I'm talking about facts.

What a plaintiff's "goal" might be is not really the issue. The would-be defendants have goals as well.

All that matters to me is whether the facts are on a party's side, and whether the law would normally provide some redress for a plaintiff's injuries.

These would be defendants, ahead of time, want immunity from having the facts heard at all, at least in certain cases. Seems like they would want jurys to hear all the facts- but we both know that is the last thing they want.

Endless litiagation? Economically unfeasible? You mean a jury might find a gun manufacturer liable in cerain situations if they did not have NRA paid Republicans writting special rules just for them?

No kidding.

[ManiacJoe]

80. The manufacturers have no problem with the facts being told.

They just don't want to be involved in suits that logically should not involve them. Logically, the manufacturer of any product cannot be held responsible for the actions of the products' buyers.

If the product is defective, sue the manufacturer.

If the customer does an illegal act with the product, prosecute the customer for his illegal act. The manufacturer has no liability in this since he/it has no control over the customer's actions after the legal sale is completed.

If the sale was illegal, prosecute the seller for the illegal act.

[Dr Fate]

83. Then why do they spend millions lobbying to keep facts away from civil juries?

They don't want to be involved in suits b/c they are afraid the facts might cause them to lose.

If they are not responsible, then that would be their defense in court. If they were able to win in court, then being held responsible for the action of the buyers is not even as issue.

Again, you keep focusing on defective products- but classic negligence can exist in other forms as well.

I'll tell you this much- I'm not exactly sure what suits the gun industry is immune from and what they are not immune from- but the fact that they seek any immunity at all tells me that they know their defenses would fail if special rules did not apply to them.

[X_Digger]

84. I can't make sense..

..out of your last sentence. I can think of many reason to seek immunity that have nothing to do with whether or not they would actually win.

1) because they're being pestered by cases they know they will win, yet have to prepare for and defend
2) because the damage done to their reputation by having to defend against these frivolous lawsuits can't be 'won back' in a case no matter whether or not they win or lose
3) because their operational budgets take a beating just to keep up with the frivolous lawsuits

[ManiacJoe]

85. Exactly right.

The purpose of the protections is to make sure that the lawful businesses are not sued out of business via frivolous law suits. If the suit is not frivolous, it is allowed under the law as all the law does is help define "frivolous".

[Dr Fate]

89. NRA stooges and corrupt Republican congressmen think that almost ALL lawsuits are "frivolous"

So of course the Republicans who drafted that language had no problem finding potential suits against their top donors to be frivolous before the fact.

[Dr Fate]

88. ALL corporations have the same 3 concerns, What makes the Republican Gun Industry so special?

1. They don't know they will win- if they knew that, they would go win it. I think they know they will LOSE in at least some instances.

2. If they win the case, it would redeem, not damage their reputation. The issue is they know they will not always win.

3. All manufactuers and corporation's budgets are subject to lawsuits where they are liable. Why should Republican owned gun corporations get special treatment?

Again- just because NRA stooges (mostly totally corrupt, lying, Republican congressmen) define suits as "frivolous" before we even hear the facts, does not mean some of these suits can't have merit.

"Frivolous Lawsuits" LOL! Please. Find me a Republican or NRA supporting conservative who wont tell me that almost ANY lawsuit against ANY corporation isnt "frivolous" or "unwaranted" according to their logic.

[X_Digger]

98. Reverse that..

show me a 'non-frivolous' lawsuit that was stopped by this law..

The one today is a good example, to me- "They claimed that the manufacturers deliberately made more guns than the legitimate market could support and sold them through channels that would reach a "secondary market" of private and under-the-table transactions."

Guns aren't strawberries that must be sold by a certain date or they go bad, and the 'secondary market'? ie, the _cops_?!?

[Dr Fate]

105. Again- you are using the Republican definition of "frivolous." Why not let a jury hear the facts?

So we should trust Republican law makers more than juries- is that it?

You could be right about this case or other cases, but every case is different. In any event- why not let a jury make up its own mind?

Seems to me that if gun manufacturers are intentionally, knowingly or negligently allowing guns to reach under the table transactions- these might be important facts for a jury to consider.

If the Republican gun industry is above board, then they shouldn't need to hide behind immunity. I don't believe they are above board- they are probably corrupt, dishonest corporations just like any other. Why they should get special protection is beyond me.

I wouldnt know what a "non frivolous" lawsuit would be according to the Republican definitions that you insist on using.

I do know that it is a time worn Republican tactic to label just about any lawsuit against just about any corporation as "frivolous." They have used that buzz-word for years to deny people their day in court. My guess is that this is no exception.

[X_Digger]

107. I'm not aware of other uses of the term..

.. but I'm pretty familiar of the cases that led to this legislation. There were a whole slew of them, mostly out of NY & NJ, where the widow / mother / spouse of someone shot by a criminal or a reckless / ignorant person sued the manufacturer because either a) they somehow didn't do something to keep the gun out of a criminal's hand (suing the manufacturer, mind you, not the FFL), b) 'contributed to the proliferation' that led to the person's husband / wife / son / etc being shot by a criminal, or c) didn't make the guns somehow 'personalized' so that only the 'authorized owner' could fire them.

There are laws against the 'under the table' shenannigans. In a couple of these cases, the lawsuit only happened after law enforcement said that no laws had been broken.

Why not let a jury decide?

Because of quotes like these:

Sen. Lautenberg said, "If enough cities successfully sue the industry it could be brought to its proverbial knees."

Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) said, "Doubtlessly, this promise of more easy money is the reason why several big-city mayors are lining up to support this bill." {speaking about a bill that would make such suits by local municipalities much easier.}

"A city’s potential damages can begin with a 911 call, cleaning blood from the street and emergency medical care, and continue through support of an orphaned child," Mr. Kairys wrote in a Temple Law Review article describing his strategy. The cities’ motive "is to drive the makers out of business,"

New Orleans, Chicago, Atlanta, Miami and Bridgeport, Conn., have filed look-alike lawsuits against gun makers in a 66-day period. The cities work with the D.C.-based Center to Prevent Handgun Violence (1997 Income: $3,086,128; Assets: $3,628,662), headed by Sarah Brady. CPHV attorneys Dennis A. Henigan and Brian J. Siebel are co-counsel in three of the cases.

Dang, I didn't realize that these lawsuits go back so far. Surprising that it took so long for the 2005 law to get passed.

[Dr Fate]

129. LOL! Since when does a party have to break a law before being sued in civil court?

Bottom line for me: I don't trust a corporation who writes laws for itself.

I realize that they all do it, but that doesn't make it right.

I also realize that parties sue defendants in Civil court in order to get money rewards & compensation- welcome to America- it's called the 7th Amendment.

In America, you can have a cause of action against a party even if they have not broken a law on the books- this is something that most people are aware of. Isn't that part of the reason that a court of equity exists- so that a citizen can have an avenue of redress aside from law?

No lawsuits are warranted unless someone breaks laws? Since when? Jesus- you realy DO want special rules for these Republican multi-millionares.

So a corporation and their pawns say any charge against them is "frivolous"- nothing new, nothing to see here- except this is not something Liberals would usually agree with- hey, it takes all kinds , I guess.

I get it- for better or worse-as far as this issue goes, you trust the Republican party and the NRA more than you trust the courts.

LOL! Not that the courts are infallible LOL! But the NRA? The Republican party? A multi-million dollar corporation who writes its own rules? Please.

[ManiacJoe]

110. Part of the problem seems to be that you think

there are multiple definitions of "frivolous". Specifically, what is the "Republican" definition you are trying to use?

> Seems to me that if gun manufacturers are intentionally, knowingly or negligently allowing guns
> to reach under the table transactions- these might be important facts for a jury to consider.

This would be a perfect example of the common definition of "frivolous suit". Gun manufacturers have no control over who the dealers and private sellers sell to. None, nada, zip, zero. Gun manufacturers sell to the distributors who sell to the dealers who sell to the public who can sell to each other. The manufacturer has no control of the product after it leaves his possession, especially none after it has moved three or four or more levels away. Product manufacturers are in no way responsible for the illegal uses by the purchaser of the legal products, regardless of what the product is.

Unfortunately for the gun makers, they seem to be the only industry having to fight this nonsense.

The government is quite specific about who is disallowed to own/purchase guns. If the dealers are making illegal sales, prosecute/sue them. If the private sellers are making illegal sales, prosecute/sue them. Do not try to add the manufacturers to the suits just because they have the deeper pockets, which is almost always the only real reason they get added to these suits.

[Dr Fate]

128. I don't have a problem- I'm not the one citing and agreeing with a REPUBLICAN bill.

If you look above- you will see that we are discussing "frivolous" lawsuits as identified by a Republican bill.

And of course REPUBLICANS think that any law suit against any corporation is "frivolous." LOL! "frivolous lawsuits"- what is this? Newt Gingrich & Joe the Plumber's greatest hits?

So you, the NRA and every Republican I've ever met think my example would be a "perfect example" of a frivolous suit.

You say gun manufacturers have "no control"- but maybe we should find out if they have knowledge, intent or have otherwise failed in their duty of care.

Sorry, but I can't take the NRA's word for it that it would be frivolous. I can't take the word of the corrupt Republicans who carved out these special excpetions for their paymasters either.

I know that you, the NRA and Republicans would find it to be "frivolous"- but I'd like to see if a court would find it frivolous- minus any "immunity" or special language written by Republicans getting in the way.

[ManiacJoe]

162. Every now and then the Republicans get one right.

To bring a suit, your claim needs merit. If you are going to claim that the manufacturers are responsible for the actions of the consumers, you will be rightfully tossed out. If you want to claim something else, which probably does have merit, then feel free to do so since it is allowed.

The immunity is very limited, it is not blanket. Why the gun industry and no one else? Because the gun industry is the only one (so far) that needs it since the judges are not doing their job by tossing out the frivolous suits against gun makers like they toss out the frivolous suits against other manufacturers.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/15C105.txt

[Callisto32]

120. Whether or not they would win is less a factor than you may think.

I'm going to assume that this would be happening in a federal court for the sake of this point.

Do you have any idea what it probably costs just to have corporate lawyers constantly filing 12(b) motions? Let alone preparation for litigation that may never come. Billable hours, man.

If you can run up costs enough, you can put someone out of business. Such manipulation of the legal system is illegal, and can get a lawyer disbarred. Immunity laws, such as the ones that prevent suing the government, are made to keep this from happening. If all you do is defend in suits, you never get anything else done. Economic waste, my friend. Court's don't like it.

[Dr Fate]

130. But I'm not willing to take the NRA's word for it that all of these suits would be "frivolous."

Did we forget that the NRA and the gun industry they represent is run by corrupt lying Republicans- or am I supposed to pretend otherwise for the sake of argument?

And I'm not willing to take the Republican party's word for it that all potential lawsuits would involve "illegal manipulation of the legal system." Seems like the Republicans are the ones who are doing the manipulating- by writing special laws for their campaign donors.

Silly me- I tend not trust Republican congressmen and I tend not to trust the bills the write for their multi-million dollar, Republican paymasters.

Oh shit- I forgot- I'm in the gun dungeon.

[X_Digger]

140. Looks at the cases previously filed..

..to me, those cases represent the cause of the legislation in question. We can speculate on what will and won't be blocked based on the legislation, or we can look at the kind of cases that were actually filed. Wouldn't that be appropriate?

[Dr Fate]

142. I'd say it is appropriate to consider whether potential plaintiffs are denied their day in court.

If any existing or proposed immunity would keep legitimate plaintiffs with arguably legitimate claims out of court, I'd say that was a rigged game.

For me, I'd rather see the court itself decide whether a current case against the gun industry is "frivolous"-

The Defendant should not get to decide or define this based on a past case with different facts. Each new case has a different set of facts.

I'm also assuming that smart people could disagree with the NRA, Republican party and conservative judges as to whether all of the past cases were indeed "frivolous."

Again, you are basically arguing that defendants should be be able establish what claims can be brought against themselves-sounds pretty corrupt and one-sided to me- but that is typical Republican law making.

I might be open minded to a bill that would force the plaintiffs to pay costs, if the lawsuit was found to be illegitimate, dishonest, totally unwarranted, etc, but I cant see letting multi-million dollar corporations write laws for itself to hide behind.

[X_Digger]

143. Yes, a national 'loser pays' would be nice..

.. but until that happens, what other remedy would you suggest for 60'ish lawsuits asserting that the use of a manufacturer's product in a manner consistent with its design but against an innocent third party constitutes a defective product or negligence?

It's also a separation of powers issue- the anti-gun lobby can't get legislation passed that they like, so they use the judicial branch to harry the gun industry with the stated goal of driving them out of business.

[Dr Fate]

146. The separation of powers issue swings both ways, doesnt it?

The Republican NRA and gun industry lobby are afraid that they will get court rulings they won't like, so they pay money to the legislative branch to get them to pass bills that keep juries from hearing facts about how they operate.

Therefore, arguing that this immunity somehow maintains or restores the integrity of separation of powers is not really accurate.

I guess it just comes down to who's side you are on- a multi million dollar corporation or someone who has claim that they were harmed by them.

One reason why the idea we both like wont happen is b/c that is not what the NRA wanted- they dont want to go to court in the 1st place. Seems to me they already know what the outcome would be in certain cases.

What OTHER remedy would I suggest? How about we apply the same laws, defenses etc. to them that we apply to other corporate tortfeasors? Right now I'd still say take away special immunity, special language, special determinations as to what is frivolous or not, and let the chips fall where they may.

[X_Digger]

147. 'chips fall where they may' =?

Letting the industry defend itself repeatedly by a procession of grieving widows and mothers who claim that a criminal misusing the industry's product is somehow due to a "defective" product?

Is that really what you want? If so, then that just reassures me that the legislature did the right thing- protected an industry from being sued to death by an advocacy group.

I'd feel the same way if MADD was suing Toyota because their cars are used by drunks, or Easton was being sued for ciminal misuse of baseball bats.

[Dr Fate]

149. Sure- let the chips fall where they may- but only if the defendant is found liable in a fair trial.

If no one is liable, then there is no fear of being sued to death, etc.

You seem pretty scared that they certainly will be found liable unless congress lets them make special exceptions for themselves.

It's not about what I want- it's about letting the process play out in more fair manner. In any event, your separtation of powers argument swings both ways-so it's really about who's side you want to take.

I'm new to these discussions so I'm still not 100% clear on what the gun industry is immune from and what they are not- so maybe this is why you keep focusing on "defective" prodcuts.

Are suits involving "defective products" the only thing the gun industry is immune from?

As far as regular negligence theory goes (such as one based on the way guns are allegedly marketed, distributed etc) does the gun industry have any special bills or language written for it?

I'm asking b/c I don't know. Is there a handy link for all the special rules and immunities that apply to the gun industry, or is the 2005-2006 bill you already provided the only thing on this?

[X_Digger]

152. Re-read the legislation posted elsewhere..

Gun manufacturers can still be sued for negligence in marketing, product liability (gun blows up in hand, not gun shot toddler), etc- just not for the criminal misuse of a gun.

What bothers me is the supposition that it's okay to launch countless lawsuits against any industry with no expectation of winning, for the sole purpose of running up the bill for the industry.

[Dr Fate]

155. I'd like to re-read the whole thing. Are you sure this is the only immunity law on the books?

I have to make that clear- b/c above I was told by another poster that I was wrong to say that the gun industry is immune from strict liability- but it turns out that they did indeed have special rules and exceptions carved out for them.

I'm not sure there is no expectation of winning these lawsuits in every instance- but I can see the value in framing it that way.

Hey Digger-this has been fun. I'm glad to let you have the final word in this subthread- this thread has turned into an unruly column!

We can pick this up elsewhere in the thread, or some other day.

Allow me to complement you on your willingness to "stick to your guns!"

Cheers!

[X_Digger]

156. Lol, thanks!

As far as I can tell, this is the only legislation on the subject.

I did a bunch of google searches as well as searching at thomas.loc.gov- lots of extra amendments to unrelated bills from 1999-2004, but this legislation _appears_ to be the main one.

[ManiacJoe]

77. Your example is a legal problem

not a civil problem. If the maker or distributor is doing illegal things, they need to be prosecuted for those illegal acts. Since the manufacturers and distributors do not sell to the public -- the dealers to that -- by definition they would have no knowledge of what the end user might or might not do with the product. If the dealers are illegally selling to disqualified buyers or straw purchasers, they need to be prosecuted for that illegal act.

Civil suits are a different matter. Unfortunately, juries are not required to use facts and logic when returning their verdicts. Else, the federal law protecting all gun manufacturers from these frivolous suits would not be needed.

[Dr Fate]

79. Negligence is a civil, not a leal matter. In the US, one can be prosecuted as well as sued.

OJ Simpson being the famous example of that.

One can be prosecuted for an illegal act and can also be sued in civil court for negligence, etc.

Also- I don't know what knowledge gun manufacturers and distributors have about what dealers or others in the chain know or do not know- but maybe that would be something we could find out in court.

It boils down to this- the gun industry always seeks immunity b/c they don't want juries hearing facts. They realize that they could and probably would be found liable if all these special rules and laws did not apply to them.

[ManiacJoe]

81. What facts do you think are being hidden?

What secrets are being kept from the juries?

[Dr Fate]

86. LOL! So you are saying that Republican owned industries do not hide facts? LOL!

Are you saying that Republican owned corporations and industries do not hide facts?

LOL! Could be- but interesting that you think the gun industry is inhernently more honest than other multi-million dollar, multi-national corporations- who do not always get this kind of special immunity from law suits.

What facts are the gun industry hiding? Let a plaintiff make an argument and then we might know. Hell, maybe you are right the gun industry would even win the suit based on such facts. It's just that I'm not willing to take the NRA's word for that.

What facts are they hiding? Obviously quite a few- because if the facts are on their side, they would have no problem presenting them in court in their defense.

For all I know there could be any number of things they don't want to be discussed in litigation: facts pertaining to marketing, sales, lobbying, political corruption, that may come out to establish intent, knowledge, lack of care etc.

Again- if they had nothing to hide, they wouldn't spend so much time rigging the game- they would be more willing to establish their solid defenses in court.

If you are not afraid of facts coming out, then let them be sued. If they are in the right, they should win. They can afford all the top lawyers, etc.

[ManiacJoe]

113. You sound a little naive about how these suits usually work.

Facts do not usually rule the day. Juries want to award money, and the gun makers have more money than the criminals.

If the plaintiff has a valid case, the current law allows that case to be heard. So far, none of the cases brought have any validity (to the best of my recollection). The product manufacturers are not responsible for the illegal uses of their product by the consumers.

> ... facts pertaining to marketing, sales, lobbying, political corruption, that may come out to
> establish intent, knowledge, lack of care etc.

If you want to sue on any of those bases, then do so. However, do not try to use the frivolous arguement "the product maker is responsible for the users' actions" as an excuse to get there.

[Callisto32]

121. Proably at about the same rate as Democrat owned ones. n/t

[Dr Fate]

132. Exactly- so why SPECIAL treatment for the Republicans? n/t

n/t

[Callisto32]

119. Earlier, you suggested we should lmit liability in proximate cause

in strict liability, now it is to be limited under duty in negligence law? Which is it and why? What kind of facts would take this out of negligence and put it into strict liability? If in negligence, what duty do they have and what would make that burden lighter than probability/loss? Define your terms, please.

[Dr Fate]

137. My position is that corporations generally should not write special laws for themselves.

And when they do, it's usually because they need special treatment and protection as to their wrong-doings. I think this might be the case for the gun industry.

If you are unaware of what the elements of a a neglignece cause of action or a strict liablilty suit are- look them up.

Assuming the Gun Industry defendant did not have special immunity, proximate and actual cause would be established by the Plaintiff, according to the facts of the case- assuming the law would even allow such a case.

I never said any liability should be limited to one cause of action or another- it seems that the NRA and the Republicans are the ones who are saying that.

Unlike the NRA and the gun industry, I don't get to define any terms- I'm using the regular defintions that apply to everyone else but gun makers.

[X_Digger]

68. There is a standard for frivolous, ya know..

If the intent is to harass, not address a defect, that's frivolous.

If you drop a gun and it goes off, that's a legitimate defect (and has been litigated- the plaintiffs won). If Johnny shoots the clerk at the local kwik-e mart with a baretta, suing baretta would be frivolous. If Billy sneaks into dad's nightstand and takes out his unsecured, un-trigger-locked loaded revolver and kills Johnny, shame on dad, not shame on Smith & Wesson.

Here's the meat of the bill in question..

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-397

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON BRINGING OF QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTIONS IN FEDERAL OR STATE COURT.

(a) In General- A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court.

(b) Dismissal of Pending Actions- A qualified 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 pending.

<snip>

(5) QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTION-

(A) IN GENERAL- The term `qualified civil liability action' means a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include--

{ed: suit can still be brought for these below reasons}

(i) an action brought against a transferor convicted under section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code, or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so convicted;

(ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;

(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, including--

(I) any case in which the manufacturer or seller knowingly made any false entry in, or failed to make appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under Federal or State law with respect to the qualified product, or aided, abetted, or conspired with any person in making any false or fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of a qualified product; or

(II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code;

(iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product;

(v) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or

(vi) an action or proceeding commenced by the Attorney General to enforce the provisions of chapter 44 of title 18 or chapter 53 of title 26, United States Code.

[Dr Fate]

74. Exactly- and the standards in that law were probably written by Republicans and NRA types.

But I could be wrong. Was this a DEM bill?

This doesnt seem to change anything. The Republican Gun Industry and the NRA had their Republican and conservative congressmen carve out special rules and for what applies to lawsuits against them. Your link establishes this even further.

My guess is that what would be "frivolous" in a suit against a gun manufacturer might not be frivolous in other actions. Again, that is why this bill needed to carve out special rules.

As I said- I'm already well aware of what Republican and conservative standards are for a "frivolous" lawsuit.


Also, product defect is not the only theory that could be used against negligent manufactueres or distributors- unless there is special rules and immunity there as well. Who knows...

This is an interesting excpetion:

(II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code;

In that case, I would have assumed that the NRA types would not even allow this, so I'm glad to learn that they were willing to give an inch for that one.

Interesting read- thanks!

[X_Digger]

82. Looks like 14 (D) co-sponsors..

also check the list of amendments.. looks like all the usual suspects tried to attach poison pills or crazy restrictions. Feinstein, Clinton, Lautenberg, Kennedy, Corzine, Schumer, Boxer, etc..

Sen Clinton:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/amendment.xpd?session=109&amdt=s1616

PROHIBITION ON SALE OF VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES TO MINORS.

Sen Kennedy (many!):

(vi) any case in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product failed to maintain theft prevention measures.
(vi) any case in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product failed to report the theft or loss of a firearm from the inventory or collection of the manufacturer or seller, as required under section 923(g)(6) of title 18, United States Code.
(vi) any case in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product failed to perform employee background checks or knew, or had reasonable cause to believe, that employees were engaging in actions that are grossly negligent or that constitute willful misconduct.

Sen Corzine, Clinton, Kennedy:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/amendment.xpd?session=109&amdt=s1617

SEC. 5. FIVE-SEVEN PISTOL.

(a) Findings and Purpose.--

(1) FINDINGS.--Congress finds the following:

(A) Law enforcement is facing a new threat from handguns and accompanying ammunition, which are designed to penetrate police body armor, being marketed and sold to civilians.

There's tons more of crap that was proposed, the only ones to make it through are that manufacturers have to provide child safety locks and some expansion of 'armor piercing ammunition'.

[Dr Fate]

87. Sure-the NRA and other Multi-million dollar Republican lobby groups have DEM stooges as well.

I'm not sure I would find Kennedy's amendment to be all that crazy.

I'm sure you could argue otherwise, and i may not have all the facts here, but it seems like these would be examples of parties failing to meet a minimum standard of care.

Imagine that- I tend to side with Kennedy on this one thing and not the NRA/Republican gun industry.

[X_Digger]

99. I think there are like 20 from Kennedy..

I just picked three versions, with slightly different points.

Check out the ones from Durbin.

[Callisto32]

123. They arent REAL Democrats.....

Dude, you can't have a game if you keep changing the rules.

[Dr Fate]

138. I thought it was the gun industry who was changing the rules.

All I did was say that the NRA has a dozen DEM stooges in congress along with ALL of their GOP stooges in congress.

Fighting for corporate immunity is usally not a Liberal or left of center issue.

How is this trying to change the game?

[Callisto32]

122. So, unless laws are made by MY people, they are bad.

Is this a discussion of the actual law, or some twisted attempt to show that Republicans are evil and eat babies/kick puppies?

If this bill had be primarily Democrat backed, would it be okay?

[Dr Fate]

131. Sorry- but I have good reason not to trust Republicans- if you trust them, that is your bad...

...not mine.

[michreject]

104. Then sue the shooter

He misused the product.

[Dr Fate]

133. Product misuse is not the only issue.

The guys at the top might be negilent or liable as well.

One can already can sue the shooter- they don't have immunity.

[Callisto32]

118. You need to get over harping on "the other" it does no good and only makes your credibility suspect.

There are lots of Republicans saying the same thing about Democrats right now.

"But they are wrong" you may say.

Prove it, says I.

Xenophobia, even in mild forms, is a nasty thing.

[Dr Fate]

134. I have a credibility problem b/c I do not trust Republicans or corporations?

LOL! Where am I? Joetheplumberunderground?

Is this Opposite world?

[krispos42]

154. Because it costs money.

There's a guy in Los Angeles who makes a very nice living suing every company in the phone book for like $100. For "damages". The companies he sues never reply to the lawsuit because it would cost more money than it's worth.


Likewise, the gun-control lobby could file numerous lawuits on any grounds, knowing that for every dollar they spend it has to be matched by the gun company. Most gun companies aren't very large, and legal services like that costs hundreds or thousands of dollars an hour.

The gun-control lobby could target one small company (like, say, Wilson Combat) and wipe it out in legal fees, then move on to the next one, working it's way up the food chain to the big guys like Smith & Wesson.

Smith & Wesson has revenues of just under $300 million in 2008 and lost about $9 million. So you can see where an expensive, grinding lawsuit can seriously damage a gun company.

[pipoman]

116. Have you read the suit? Have you read the 2005 law?

There was no claim in the suit of defects in design, manufacturing or workmanship. With no such claim there would be no grounds for the jury to examine that avenue. The 2005 law does not dismiss actions against gun makers for defects, it simply does not allow for frivolous suits arising from criminal misuse of a non defective consumer product. The basis of this suit would be no different than suing an auto manufacturer for a drunk driving death, a baseball manufacturer for the death of someone hit in the head with a ball, or Swiss Army Knife Company for the death of Ron Goldman and Nicole Simpson.

[walnutpie]

23. Wow, you brought your own straw man to the thread, how sweet of you

Guns are subject to strict liability standards. If one blows up and causes you harm, you can seek redress. If one functions as it should, firing a shot each time the trigger is pulled and you shoot your eye out, that's just natural selection. The courts have zero business regulating stupid.

[Dr Fate]

33. What about a defect in the warning? What about causing forseeable injury with knowledge & intent?

What about marketing/sales that are known to the gun industry to increase gun violence- none of that is up for discussion?

Maybe it should be. I don't see why some foreign company should get special treatment.

If one case or another never goes in front of a jury for review, then who are you to say whether some foriegn gun company is strictly liable or not?

[X_Digger]

45. None of that is product defect, duh

Sue for false advertising, or fraud, if marketing makes a claim that is false.

I know, let's sue Honda because Jo-bob got drunk and plowed into a crowd of people.

[Dr Fate]

54. But perhpas it does establish regular old negligence.

And defect in warning is a type of product defect subject to strict liability standards- just to keep that clear.

Also- strict liability is not the only theory that the gun industry needs special proctection from.

Are we saying that the gun industry should not meet a certain standard of care? I think they should.

My larger point is that the gun industry does NOT want jurys to hear facts- that is why they would prefer to fight for immunity instead of arguing their defense.

[X_Digger]

59. See upthread..

Remington was successfully sued in a class action lawsuit for using substandard steel in some of their shotguns.

[Dr Fate]

65. Sure- but that sounds like a design or manufacturing defect.

I was going on to say that negligence, aside from strict product liability could be a theory.

My guess is that the NRA thinks the gun industry should be immune from duty of care negligence suits as well.

I could see a gun industry type or distributor failing in his duty of care in a number of ways- and I'll bet a jury could too. This is why the NRA would rather fight for immunity than fight in court like everyone else has to do.

I still maintain that if the NRA had valid arguments, they would not need to fight for immunity & special excpetions- they would be able to argue their defense in front of a jury.

As an aside, you probably wont believe me when I tell you that I'm for private gun ownership, and that I come to these threads to see what everyone's talking points and arguments are. I admit that I'm learning about all the ends and outs of this issue, while you have all of your talking points at your finger tips- and there is nothing wrong with that.

[X_Digger]

72. It's not blanket immunity..

see upthread (again).

If the brady bunch could raise funds to keep the gun manufacturers in court 24/7/365, and _never_ win- they still would. At some point, the gun manufacturers would say 'aww, screw it, not worth it."- which is what the brady bunch want, by hook or by crook.

[Dr Fate]

78. You are right- according to the link you provided above...

...there are a few ways that the industry could be held liable.

Again, I dont care what a plainff's goal might be- I only care about what facts that plaintiff could establish in court.

Just my opinion- Multimillion dollar industries shouldnt have special exceptions crafted just for them b/c you don't like one possible plaintiff's alleged goals.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

90. Do you have examples of that marketing by Glock?

[Dr Fate]

93. Would the gun industry be immune from such a suit, if a plaintiff did have such examples?

I ask because I don't know.

Digger X provided an interesting text to a bill that might provide the answer, but I don't know all the ends and outs of it like you guys do.

If you notice, most of my posts are designed to get information and to get a feel for gun absolutist type arguments...

In any event, I never argued that Glock did anything wrong at all- even though I would generally be willing to let a jury decide that b/f trusting the NRA/GOP/Corporate standard for what makes a "frivolous" argument.

My comments were about immunity in general-I'm just learning about pro-immunity arguments.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

94. I can give you my absolutist opinion.

I absolutely believe that any law abiding adult who is a U.S. citizen or one with a valid immigration status who has never been convicted of a felony or a violent misdemeanor, is not mentally ill, does not have a restraining order outstanding should be allowed to purchase the weapons currently available without special permits under the NFA of 1934. I believe the illegal possession of firearm by a felon should result in a mandatory 10 year sentence to be served day for day consecutively with any other sentences. I believe the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony should result in an automatic 20 year sentence to be served day for day consecutively with any other sentence. I believe the government should aggressively target and prosecute straw purchasers. I also believe that the 2nd Amendment protects and individual right to own privately held firearms.

David

[Dr Fate]

95. We basically agree on almost all of those points.

I rarely respond to posts I agree with on gun threads, b/c I'm still on a learning curve. I learn from arguing, not from agreeing. This might give people the impression that I'm a "gun grabber" absolutist. I am not.

I would be more willing to emphasize ways (things that are NOT gun control) to stop crime at it's roots
as opposed to building more prisons, but we mostly agree as to the above.

If I advocate for anything on this topic, its balance. If we are talking about more prisons and more prisoners as our only viable balance to gun violence, then we part ways at that point.

If the NRA, gun industry, the Republican party and "Blue Dog" DEMS were as committed to curing violence at it's roots as they are to private gun ownership, you and I would would not even be arguing right now- b/c there would be little to argue about.

As far as negligence in marketing, I'm still not clear if the industry would be immune from those types of suits. Maybe this would depend on the facts...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

96. The criminal statutes are about gun crime.

The majority of gun homicides are committed by previously convicted felons with illegally possessed firearms. There are a great many ways to stop crime, violent criminals however need to be in prison for a very long time especially those committing violent gun crime.

David

[Dr Fate]

97. Sure- I'm talking about crime prevention, not protection or retribution after the fact.

Once I'm shot, I'm shot. Putting the guy in prison helps the next would-be victim, but not me.

We agree that violent criminals need to be locked up- maybe I'm just a dreamer who thinks we could have less violent criminals to begin with. (More education, more mental health, more emphasis on helping out young people, etc)

Hell, being in Boy Scouts or in a target practice club as a kid could even be an example of healthy team building, socialization, etc. I shot guns in Boy Scouts all the time- even got my Rifle & Shotgun Merit badge! (I beleive they are 2 sep. badges now-a-days)

See- I aint all bad. ;)

My main problem is I rarely hear any balance on the issue. Ouside of DU, I've never heard a gun rights advocate talk about any other solution than building more prisons and causing even more misery (not to mention costs). If they presented themsleves as truly being part of the solution and not just part of the problem, I'll bet they could totally win me over.

[krispos42]

150. The gun worked as advertised

When a cartridge was chambered and the trigger pulled, the gun fired. When there was a loaded magazine in the gun, the gun will eject the discharged cartridge and load a new one from the magazine.

The shooter was a competent and knowledgeable adult.


I don't see where this lawsuit had any legs.


Gun makers cannot sell guns directly to the public. They sell them to federally licensed dealers who sell them to the public.


Since the gun worked as advertised and they didn't sell the gun to the shooter, I don't see how this can really go anyplace.

[NightWatcher]

2. the only way you should be able to sue a gunmaker is for a defect

this one operated as it was supposed to.

I wonder if anyone has sucessfully sued Ford or Chevy because someone got drunk and hit somebody with the car.

[Dr Fate]

21. Manufacturer, design and warning defects that are an actual & proximate cause of forseeable injury.

I believe that is the general test, if it is any other distributor or manufacturer.

Apparently foriegn gun manufacturers get special treatment that no one else gets.

[walnutpie]

26. Hey look, there's that straw man again - you two sure spend a lot of time together

[Dr Fate]

37. And you spend a lot of time advocating for the special treatment of a foreign corporation.

And repeating NRA talking points.

[walnutpie]

60. Sometimes common sense and talking points coincide

This is one of those times.

Using the courts to limit civil rights by engaging manufactures of legal, and safe products is fascist by definition. Proclaiming otherwise is disingenuous at best and serves only to discredit your cause. By all means, proceed.

[Dr Fate]

67. So you find common sense in NRA literature, but not so much in the 7th Amendment.

That is the one that allows for civil trails with jurys.

You have yet to exaplain to me how establishing negligence or some other liability on the part of the gun industry limits your civil rights.

If the gun industry is in the right, then they would WIN their suit- just like when newspapers and authors are sued and they use the 1st Amendment as a defense.

And as far any "cause" goes- I dont have one. I'm merely asking questions here to see what your arguments are.

It's that I'm *for* the gun industry being sued so much as I am for them explaining to me exactly why they shouldnt be. Or better yet, let them be sued, and then let them WIN the suit.

[X_Digger]

47. Sue ginsu for foreseeable injury! n/t

[Dr Fate]

56. Lucky for the NRA and the Republican gun industry that juries wouldn't care about cute metaphors.

Which is exactly why the Republican gun industry is always trying to rig the game so they can get special treatment and immunity from lawsuits.

I have a feeling all of the cute metaphors, semantics over gun parts and other Republican/NRA talking points wouldnt hold quite as much weight if a court were examining their marketing strategies, etc.

[X_Digger]

61. Sue Honda for car proliferation?

You could sue under the clean air act, and because drunks plow into buses filled with children!

"That marketing led to proliferation!! Sue, sue, sue!"

[Dr Fate]

92. This is why the Republican gun industry fights for immunity,,,,

These silly metaphors may win points on an NRA message board, but the Republican Gun Industry & the NRA knows that their silly "gotcha" metaphors and other assorted semantics tricks will not play well in front of a real trier of fact.

[X_Digger]

100. It illustrates the silliness

when compared to another industry that produces a product that can be criminally misused.

If you can't rationalize it for cars, you can't rationalize it for guns (at least I can't.)

[Dr Fate]

102. Most normal people know the differences between selling fire arms and selling cars & trucks.

They are marketed differently, and their intended purposes are different.

Normal people who are not trying to defend a multi-million dollar, Republican owned industry could think of many differences between a guns & ammo distributor and a car dealer.

Most jurors and triers of fact know the difference between a fire arm and a volks-wagon bus too.

Just because NRA types, Republcians and tea-baggers always confuse the 2 does not mean a jury would be that stupid.

Besides- "criminal misuse" by the consumer is not the only possible theory of liability here- but it seems to be the only one you are comfortable arguing against.

[X_Digger]

103. Analogy..

There wouldn't be a need for analogies if 'Thing A' actually _were_ 'Thing B'.

*sigh*

I focus on criminal misuse because that's what the law addresses. That was the substance of the cases brought against the gun industry in 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2004 ahead of this legislation. Feel free to bloviate the brady bunch claims in spite of actually having seen the meat of the law itself.

Cause, ya know, Sara Brady is such a reliable source compared to http://thomas.loc.gov .

[Dr Fate]

106. Criminal misuse is only part of the equation.

Maybe you don't like focusing on the intent, negligence, etc. on the part of gun manufacturers in certain instances because you have not thought of a cute metaphor yet.

Like I said- most normal people dont confuse car dealers with weapons dealers- just you guys.

[Callisto32]

125. Intentional torts and negligence are different animals. n/t

[Dr Fate]

139. That is right- there are many causes of action on the books.

Apparently some parties have special excpetions written for themselves while others do not.

Intent is not an element of negligece, but I would imagine that a defendant could intentionally ignore a duty or standard of care just as a defendant could fail in their duty of care without intent.

[one-eyed fat man]

124. actually juries are that stupid

I know of one lawsuit where a drunk was driving with his wife in the car. He veered off the roadway in a snowstorm and struck a parked military vehicle.

His pregnant wife, who was not wearing a seatbelt was launched through the windshield.

The Army truck was not moving, was where it was supposed to be but a jury box full of old babushkas decided that the Army should pay the drunk's wife 2.6 million dollars because.

Seems that under joint and several liability even though her husband was drunk and ran into a parked truck off the wrong side of a four lane highway that since they had no insurance somebody should pay. Besides, if the Army didn't have a truck the stupid asshole wouldn't have hit it and they got plenty of money.................

The case was a crapshoot and motivation was the cut the ambulance chasing shyster got on contingency.

I think you could stop all frivolous lawsuits by simply changing to loser pays. That would certainly obviate the strategy of bleeding someone dry through endless litigation. It would also go a long way toward eliminating suits based mostly on a lawyer's willingness to gamble for a fat fee.

[Dr Fate]

135. I think your last 2 lines is the best thing I've read on this thread.

That would make much more sense to me that hiding behind immunity.

If the suit turns out to be "frivolous"- then let the plaintiff pay fees. But that is not what the NRA had the Republicans write for them. They dont want to go to court to begin with-I think it is b/c they don't want people to get the facts.

[Caliman73]

148. Where are firearms marketed?

I have never seen an ad selling firearms anywhere but a gun magazine, a Big-5 circular, or a manufacturer's website. I don't understand where your argument about false advertising about guns is coming from. Other products that are misused and cause injury or death like cars and alcohol are routinely marketed on prime time television, in print ads, and billboards. Marketing of guns is nowhere near as prolific as marketing of other products. If you want to buy a gun, you have to actively look for where and how to do so, it is not mainstream.

The only other product that has been targeted like this are cigarettes, but unlike cigarettes which use addictive chemicals to keep consumers and second hand smoke which causes indiscriminate destruction by through intended use of the product, it is already established that the use of guns pose a risk of death or injury from accident or misuse. Each firearm comes with warnings about the potential dangers from mishandling or intentional misuse.

I have a hard time believing that you are hear to learn anything about guns. Your continued use of "Republican and NRA" insults indicates that you have preconceived notions about guns, gun manufacturers, and gun owners.

You were asked to show an example of marketing firearms in a way which creates a legal situation where negligence can be established. Please do so.

[Dr Fate]

151. I've never seen an ad about guns either. That is not what I was thinking about.

Maybe I should have said distribution instead of marketing- but I see them as closely related. Sorry for being unclear.

For instance- what if a gun distributor knowingly and intentionally makes an effort to sell more guns in high crime areas- or on the border of states that have laws against the guns in question. For better or for worse, I'm guessing this might be a basis or at least evidence towards negligence or some other tort.

Maybe they would have a legit reason for doing these things- fine by me- tell it to the judge.

Perhaps there is no immunity for claims like this. I'm still learning about all of this.

As far as me continuing to label the NRA as a corrupt Republican lobby, and as far as my characterizing large corporations- especially the gun indiustry- as "Republican"- I find it interesting that this would be suspect behavior on my part at a Liberal website.

I do have preconcieved notions about multi-million dollar corporation who write laws for themselves- I assume they are corrupt. I'm for private gun ownership just the same.

You can question my motivation all you want- fine by me. If I've said something incorrect about the corrupt Republcans who do the bidding of the NRA, feel free to defend those fine gentlemen.

In any event , I stand by my comment- normal people (and many juries) could tell the difference between cars and guns- it's only you guys who are always confusing the two.

[Caliman73]

158. Distribution is controlled by legislation

This country still operates under the assumption of innocence until evidence of wrong doing is supported to a reasonable level. I am not defending any corrupt politician Democrat or Republican. Donations and political contributions are also regulated. If there is wrong doing with regards to lobbying then that is subject to investigation as well. All corporations are by nature amoral. They exist to make profit and will do so as they can. Legislation is written to make sure that there is a minimum standard of accountability. That standard can be corrupted as we have seen with the financial industry. We have seen it with the auto industry, the oil industry, etc... I am sure that there are gun manufacturers that would do things legal and illegal to secure profits too. However, your argument is simply a broad brush indictment of one particular industry and an organization that advocates preservation of gun rights, training, and safety. I don't like the political wing of the NRA, they have taken a decidedly rightward stance on subjects.

When you say "normal people" can tell the difference between cars and guns, on its face yeah it seems like a reasonable statement, but the problem is that "normal" depends on the population. If you ask a jury of people who live in Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington DC or other area where guns have been more restricted and demonized, you will get one response. If you go to a state like Vermont, or places in Texas, or Washington, you may get a very different reaction. Cars, which are correlated with much more injury and death than guns, are given a pass in relationship to safety because they are designed as a conveyance. Guns have been demonized and cause a fear response such that the mention of a gun already draws negative connotation. It is not confusion it is an argument that the function of an item is not as relevant as its use or misuse. There are about 300 million firearms in the possession of about 80 million private citizens. The vast majority of these firearms are used for legal, non violent purposes, yet the way guns are portrayed in the media, you would believe that there are hundreds of thousands of deaths each year and that no one should be trusted.

The problem is that people equate movement with regards to the 2nd amendment solely with the NRA because of its profile. The reality is that there are about 4 million NRA members out of 80 million gun owners. That is a small percentage of the population. When owners hear about legislation aimed at curtailing rights further, they mobilize. Sure the media focuses on the NRA's lobby, but those 80 million voters are also pretty effective behind the scene at letting law makers know what the will of the people is.

[Dr Fate]

159. I'm still unclear as to whether the gun industry would have immunity as to the hypothetical above.

We agree that corporations do things legal and illegal to make a profit- it would really irk me to find out that the gun industry would have immunity or any kind of special considerations carved out for them in these situations.

Maybe they don't.

I don't have a problem with your private ownership of guns- but I'm not sure that corporations seeking special rules-including the gun industry- are looking out for "we the people" at all.

Thanks for your reasoned opinions and info.

[Caliman73]

160. I think that the laws seek mainly to avoid suits that have no legal merit...

In other words, they do not...Judges routinely decide whether certain evidence is permissable in court actions. They determine whether lawsuits have merit before they are ever presented to a jury. That is established legal practice.


Legal merit has to be establised in civil actions. The panel of judges determined that the evidence presented in the Glock case did not present sufficient evidence that Glock was liable for the damages caused in the incident. The original firearm was sold to a law enforcement agency. When firearms are "used" law enforcement agencies sometimes allow the firearm to be sold to firearms dealers who in turn sell them to eligible buyers. Unless Glock reasonably knew that their firearm would get into the hands of someone that would misuse it, then no cause for negligence would be made.

The law protecting manufacturers from law suits specifies conditions under which liability would not apply. It is not immunity, it is protection from specific types of lawsuits which seek to exploit the financial position of a company to obtain compensation unrelated to the company's actual liabilty.

The analogy to cars is appropriate because there will be a certain number of cars that will be misused by their owners and cause destruction, injury, and death. This is irrespective to what people argue about the purpose of cars versus guns. It is a given that guns are dangerous objects. That is established. By that very high standard, all gun manufacturers would be guilty of providing the public with potentially deadly implements. In most cases the benefit of the doubt falls on the side of responsible use. We know that alcohol consumption leads to potential problems but the line still stands where behavior contrary to the law is engaged in. The same is true with guns although some would desire to make simple possession of certain firearms a crime regardless of intent and behavior with said firearms.

[Dr Fate]

163. "No legal merit"- according to GOP liars and the conservatives who pay them millions, that is.

My guess is that the Republicans (you know- those guys who lie for corporations every day of their lives) who were paid to write this law assume or pretend to assume that most or all lawsuits are unrealted to their donor's (the gun industry) liablity.

Sorry- in the end, I dont trust Republicans and I dont take the NRA's word for it that these potential suits are all unrealated to any actual liability.

I certainly wont take the word of the gun industry who paid them to take these postions.

Of course the Republican party will tell us all that their top donors are not liable, and assume, or pretend to assume that any potential plaintiff's claim is "frivolous." This is nothing new at all.

To me it looks like the proven liars in the Republcan party are paid to say that all these suits are frivolous and that they are are unrealted to their donor's liability. The people who they are protecting have paid them literally millions of dollars- do you really expect them to say otherwise?

The anology to cars is stupid- just like all of the gun analogies are. Guns are not bath tubs, guns are not knives, guns are not cars. Bath tubs, knives and people who use cars to damage targets or people do not have lobby groups on par with the NRA. You cant shoot a target or shoot a person with a car, you cant conceal a car in your jacket, people rarely break into peoples houses and then kill them with cars, car manufacurers do not distribute cars knowing that a percentage of the buyers will use them to harm people on purpose.

There are thousands of differences between cars and guns- the only reason you guys use metaphors is to steer the debate away from the actual facts on hand. You guys would rather talk about cars, bath tubs, etc killing people to take focus off of the actual topic-guns being used to kill people.


In sum- you are asking me to assume that the Republican party and their multi mullion dollar pay-masters are giving me the straight story as to whether the paymaster itself might be liable- and that should be a hard pill to swallow for any thinking person.

[Caliman73]

164. I don't understand why you keep going back to your Republican meme

Look, the law was written same as the laws written to protect physicians from frivolous malpractice suits. I understand that you do not trust Republicans, neither do I. Have you read the law yet? Because you go on an on throughout the thread saying you are not familiar with what exactly it says so if you haven't even taken the time to look at it and weight it out, then you are just reacting emotionally based on your perceptions without actual evidence and knowledge.


Explain why the car or other analogy is stupid. Try to be clear about it because your statement above offers nothing more than a deflection like you are accusing.

Cars and guns are very different you are right about that. No one ever said they were the same. What I want you to do is explain why exactly death from misuse of a car whether intentional (as in assault), or accidental (as in not paying attention and running someone over) is any different from death from misuse of a gun. Can you do that? Because to use your argument from what you write you are asking me to assume that dying from one is better than dying from another.

[friendly_iconoclast]

114. Wow, you have gotten a copy of "The Protocols of The Elders of The NRA"!

Can you post a link for rest of us, so we can share your inside knowledge of how the
NRA really works?

[Dr Fate]

136. Are you saying the NRA did not lobby for gun industry immunity?

I would guess that I'm not being conspiratorial when I assume they lobbied for it.

I apologize for questioning such honest, above board, esteemed Republicans here at Democraticunderground.

[friendly_iconoclast]

144. I'm saying you are claiming a lot of inside information on how the NRA works

What I'd like to see are your sources, to go along with your assertions.

[Dr Fate]

145. I'm claiming that the NRA lobbied for gun industry immunity.

If I'm wrong, just say so.

If you want to defend them or otherwise post things about how wonderful the Republicans and the NRA are, go right ahead.

[friendly_iconoclast]

153. You're right, they did. And properly so.

As such suits are attempts at back-door gun bans.

The NRA does a lot of wrong things, and I've said so:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x222483#222491

When they do the right thing, I will also say so.

Truth doesn't reside solely in the virtuous or people I happen to agree with.

I feel bad for Furrow's victims, but not so bad that I would use a mangled
interpretation of liability law, or attempt to appeal to xenophobia in order to try to gin up moral outrage at gun manufacturers because I don't like guns

The law you object to does not protect manufacturers of defective firearms.

As was pointed out more than once, Remington (IIRC), was successfully sued for having used defective steel
in some of their firearms. And rightly so, I might add.

And now, a question for you:

Did you object when American manufacturers of light airplanes sought similar modifications of
liability laws, after they were repeatedly sued over issues that were not under their control?

[Dr Fate]

157. I know nothing about Airplane industry immunity- is this another "gun= bath tub" type metaphor?

The short answer is no- I did not object to it b/c I was not even ware of it. I'm still not aware of it.

I do know that conservatives are always protecting corporations when they are liable, and protecting the gun industry seems to be more of the same.

The law I might object to seems to make special exceptions and special rules as to strict product liability, or else why does it even need to exist?

I'm still not 100% aware of what the gun industry is immune from and what they are not immune from. You would be right if you told me to do more research.

Xenophobia? I was making just the point that these foreign corporations cannot operate the same way in their own home countries as they can here. Also, it irks me that a foreign corporation can get congress to carve out special protective rules for them while they ignore me and other actual Americans on many fronts.

[Indy Lurker]

161. Actual glock warnings

Always assume that the GLOCK pistol or any other firearm is loaded is capable of being discharged until you the user, have been personally convinced to the contrary. Until the magazine is removed and you have inspected the chamber and complete the unloading procedures as presented on page21, the firearm must be considered to be loaded and capable of being fired.
Never aim at persons when handling the weapon. To reduce the possibility of an accidental discharge, do not place your finger on the trigger until the firearm is pointed at the target and you intend to fire. If you don't want the firearm to fire, keep your finger off the trigger When firing with a two hand grip, the thumb of the weak hand should be on the weak hand side ofthe firearm, never behind the slide.
Before using the GLOCK pistols, the operating instructions and safety information in this manualmust be read and understood.Any firearm, including the GLOCK pistols, is a dangerous weapon,
it must not become accessible to unauthorised persons, especially children The manufacturer's warranty and liability is strictly limited to such as contained in the Terms of Delivery and Sale of GLOCK, Ges.m.b.h.




SAFETY AND GUARANTEE INSTRUCTIONS

1. If the weapon is dismantled by the purchaser or by any third parties further than described inthis user’s instruction, and if, as a result of inappropriate handling or incomplete reassembly,damage or malfunctions are caused, as a result of which the safety devices are renderedineffective, then the purchaser shall forfeit ant claim to guarantee against damages therebyincurred to persons or property.2. Any change to the basic construction of the weapon, in particular by the circumvention of thesafety devices, is strictly prohibited for safety reasons, and precludes the use of the weapon.3. The following actions are
not
permitted on the weapon since they could lead to damage:– With the weapon unloaded the trigger (26) shall not be manually brought into the foremostposition and actuated. The trigger shall only be brought into its foremost position by pushingback the slide (approx. 15mm or more)– Should, with the slide disassembled, the trigger (26) be inadvertently brought into its foremostposition, then the trigger shall be only actuated when, at the same time, the triggerbar ispushed forward (in muzzle direction).

– With the slide removed, it is not permitted to tension and spring the firing pin (5) forward,since this could damage the firing pin safety.– The steel insert located in the cover platte (15) to the slide must not be removed.
4.
No liability whatever can be accepted if inexpertly manufactured or inexpertly filled ammunition is used.All liability whatever is excluded in the event of these instructions not being observed.
CHECK OF SAFETY DEVICES
The following safety checks are to be carried out at regular intervals, e.g. before each use or when cleaning the weapon after use:
a) Function testing the trigger safety:
– Remove the magazine from your pistol and reassure that there is no cartridge in the barrel.Then the trigger may be pulled back.– Bring back the trigger in its most forward position by cycling the slide. The trigger safety (lever integrated in trigger) should then be properly engaged.– When lateral pressure is applied on the trigger the safety should keep engaged, blocking the trigger movement.–
Failure of the trigger safety to properly engage or block indicates that it is defective.Do not reload or use your weapon again and contact GLOCK Ges.m.b.H. or an authorised GLOCK armorer immediately
.
b) Function testing the firing pin safety:
– Dismantle the weapon into its main components as described previously and remove the recoil spring/recoil spring tube and barrel from the slide.– Hold the slide in a muzzle down position and depress the firing pin safety. The tip of the firing pin should move forward and be visible protruding from the firing pin hole.– Keep the firing pin safety depressed and shake the slide. The firing pin should be distinctly heard moving freely.– Draw back manually the firing pin about 0.2 in.– Hold the slide in a horizontal position and push forward the firing pin toward the muzzle, firing pin safety being engaged.
The firing pin should not protrude from the firing pin hole. If it does, the firing pin and the firing pin safety should be replaced.

[TheWraith]

3. So they're complaining because Glock sold pistols to the police?

How exactly does that logic work?

[tularetom]

4. Whoever SOLD a gun to somebody named "Buford Furrow" should be arrested

Sorry but when I read that name all I could think of was this guy;

[inwiththenew]

5. So Glock sells a gun to a police department

The police department when done with it (presumably) sells it back to the private side whether directly to a person or likely indirectly by selling it to a dealer or distributor. The gun then gets sold several times in private hands and eventually ends up being used in a crime. Is that what happened?

[paulsby]

6. essentially yes

excellent analysis over at volokh.com

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1242074620.shtml

[slackmaster]

34. What happened is that someone broke the law

That's what happened.

[DainBramaged]

9. I noticed no sympathy for the dead and wounded in this thread, but that's typical

as long as you can get your guns everything else is unimportant.

[walnutpie]

10. I notice you attempting to introduce an emotional non sequitor...

...rather than engage in a rational discussion, but I guess that's typical.

Hey, as long as you can get your snarky comments in, who care about a victory for reason and civil rights.

[DainBramaged]

11. It's not snarky to feel sorry for the dead and wounded, but hey, you gunnies

just don't give a shit anyway.

'click'.

another one bites the dust.

[Scandalous]

13. I have plenty of sympathy for the victims...

And I say that as someone with a family member that was a victim of a gun crime. But if I understand this story correctly, it seems that the victims (or more likely their lawers) have chosen to sue the party with the deepest pockets rather than the guilty party.

I'm no big fan of guns, but since when is it illegal for a licensed firearms manufacturer to accept a purchase order from and sell guns to a federal/state/county/city police department? If that qualifies as an illegal transaction then I would submit that every transaction I've ever engaged in (for any item) could be considered illegal!!!

Again, it comes down to finding the root cause of the problem. At some point in the sales history of this gun there was an illegal sale. And it was probably a small-time dealer/thug who broke the law. If that is the case, then go after him next time!

[Irreverend IX]

15. I've never seen you show any sympathy...

For the hundreds of thousands of people who've died due to GM's faulty engineering. The shitmetal suicide-mobiles constructed by the Big Three are responsible for far more American deaths than any make of firearm. It's funny to see someone who constantly pushes "buy American" wage such a determined battle against one of the US's fundamental civil liberties. And the Ignore button is for cowards.

[DainBramaged]

16. Bite my wrinkled white hairy ass with your bullshit

Cowards are gunnies who hide behind the government when it suits them, but bitch when you try to enforce the law. Bullshit.

And talk about cowards, why are you hiding behind a blank profile all of these years, something to hide?

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NickB79]

19. Google is your friend

http://www.google.com/search?q=gm+lawsuit+rollover&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

[DainBramaged]

24. Yes it is

http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm

want to match the number of deaths from TIRES as opoossed to guns?? You gunnies sure love your Japanese cars, what patriots.

Victim/Offender Relationship, 1976-2005

All homicides,
1976-2005

Percent Number

Total 100.0% 594,276
Intimate 10.9% 64,529
Non-intimate 53.9% 320,554
Undetermined 35.2% 209,194

Boy that is a lot of dead people from guns. Nice try thouhg. Like I said, when it suits you you folks will try anything to keep from losing your guns, even lying and bullshit.

[X_Digger]

49. And a gun was defective how?

Gun actually does what it's designed to do- propel a projectile. Non-film at 11.

[inwiththenew]

29. Here

The data is a little dated, but a cursory look on google pulled this up.

http://www.aceee.org/pubs/t021full.pdf

[DainBramaged]

32. Do they match up to the hundreds of thousands who died from gun violence?

Stop while you are ahead.

[inwiththenew]

38. Are you arguing that guns kill more people than cars?

I can't tell if that is what you are getting at or not. I don't have a dog in this fight as I don't own a gun. My point was not to say one way or the other but to back up the poster claim about US manufactured cars safety record.

[DainBramaged]

41. Nope the poster above CLAIMED GM engineering killed more people than guns

so I just proved him/her/it wrong. 52000 people a year killed by gun violence is a hard figure to dispute. Oh and last I saw, fewer people died in car accidents and when I can find that statistic maybe I'm post that but I made my point. People want to spout shit uncontested they better have figures to back it up. And for the gunnies here who own Japanese cars, way to go Patriots.

Or let me use a phrase gunnies love, cars don't kill people, people kill people.

"For the hundreds of thousands of people who've died due to GM's faulty engineering."

[jtb33]

69. I believe that his claim involved the word "faulty"...

As in FAULTY GM Engineering has cost more lives than FAULTY guns.

[X_Digger]

50. You mean less than 30k?

hundreds of thousands my left nut

[DainBramaged]

51. Dispute this with your right nut.

http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm

want to match the number of deaths from TIRES as opoossed to guns?? You gunnies sure love your Japanese cars, what patriots.

Victim/Offender Relationship, 1976-2005

All homicides,
1976-2005

Percent Number

Total 100.0% 594,276
Intimate 10.9% 64,529
Non-intimate 53.9% 320,554
Undetermined 35.2% 209,194


Involving guns.

[X_Digger]

53. Yes, you can copy paste..

Bravo.. less than 30k last year, down 2k from the year before. And 1/2 of those were suicide. Or does the method of suicide matter more to you than the fact that someone killed themselves?

[Irreverend IX]

76. There are around 50,000 vehicle deaths each year...

And 30,000 gun deaths (less in recent years), half of which are suicides. It's not that hard to find this info. Car deaths vastly outnumber gun deaths. And if GM workers want everybody to buy American, they should have gone on strike until their bosses started building cars that rational people would want to buy. But they were happy to ride their unsustainable gravy train until it derailed. Who could have guessed 5 MPG Hummers would go out of style?

[NickB79]

27. I still can't believe you're in a union

Because I work in a factory in the Midwest that is Teamster, and the belief in the right to own firearms is rock-solid among every worker there.

[DainBramaged]

30. I never said you didn't have the right to bear arms. My question simply is

how many is enough? When do you draw the line between fanaticism and protection. And if you think I ain't Union enough, maybe you want to check what the people you think are solid Union members by the cars they drive.

[NickB79]

36. Suing a gun manufacturer for the illegal actions of others DOES infringe on the right to bear arms

Because very shortly there would be no gun manufacturers left in business, including American manufacturers like Remington and Winchester, through no fault of their own.

I wonder how many American jobs would be lost if your beliefs were to be implemented into law?

[Name removed]

43. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[depakid]

31. Yes- that's typical because many of these sorts just don't care

about the consequences of the free for all gun proliferation that they advocate. Even if they did- they'd never accept the fact that they bear some responsibility for carnage.

[friendly_iconoclast]

108. You still haven't owned up to the damage caused by your "free speech"

You bear guilt for child porn and phishing sites, yet you blithely insist on "free expression"

[friendly_iconoclast]

111. I offered up that last one as an example of the 'typecasting' going on here

Typecasting- defined by Gavin De Becker in his book "The Gift of Fear" as an attempt at a
guilt trip in order to get you to do something you don't want to.

Unfortunately, the gun control "typecasters" don't seem to realize that that the guilt trip
travel agent needs to have some moral authority with the person they're trying
to lay the guilt trip on....

[ManiacJoe]

70. If you want to change the topic, start a new thread.

It's the polite thing to do.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

91. Noticeably you didn't offer any either.

[friendly_iconoclast]

112. Are the victims of defective vehicles less dead than victims of non-defective guns?

Because you don't seem to proclaim your concern as much for them...

[downindixie]

12. Well,I still like my S&W model 59

better than a glock!

[proteus_lives]

14. Good!

People should blame the psycho who killing people not whatever gun/tool he was using.

I have a ton of sympathy for the victims and the families but Glock is not to blame.

[WheelWalker]

20. Squirt guns don't squirt people - Kid's do.

[slackmaster]

28. The Glock in question has been officially certified as a "safe handgun" by the state of California

http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/

Calling it unsafe flies in the face of one of the strictest handgun laws in the nation.

[Baclava]

101. Well yeah - it's safe if you carry it in a holster like you're supposed to

Tell Plex that waistbands in the pants don't count.

I'd still feel better with a Beretta 92 safety though.

[X_Digger]

52. Good!

Do we allow people to sue Easton because people were killed by baseball bats?

If a gun is defective and that product causes injury to the user, you can still sue. If a product works as designed but is used by a third party to commit a crime, is the manufacturer's product somehow defective? Do you sue case because a pocket knife was used to kill someone? Do you sue Honda because someone took their camry and plowed into a crowd? Of course not.

What the gun control crowd can't do via legislation (support for more gun control is at an all time low) they're trying to do via frivolous lawsuits. When gun control proponents start stealing tactics from scientology, be afraid- very afraid.

[-..__...]

64. The more I read about this kind of crap...

the more I'm convinced that we should have a "loser pays" system.

This thing never should have gone to trial to begin with, but alas... the system doesn't always work that way.

However, at the very least, the plaintiffs in this case (or whomever was backing it), should have been ordered to pay compensation to
the defendants for their legal expenses and hassle of fighting this... even if it was only a token payment.

[EndersDame]

109. In the right hands a glock could stop a white supramist

or a potential robber or rapist.

[one-eyed fat man]

126. One missing fact

Furrow was also an engineer who worked for several years on the B-2 stealth bomber project for Northrop Grumman. After his capture, the FBI said, they couldn't get him to stop talking.

One chilling statement Furrow made was that he initially had targeted three Jewish institutions in the city--the Skirball Cultural Center, the University of Judaism and the Simon Wiesenthal Center's Museum of Tolerance--but was deterred by the presence of armed security. He chose the North Valley Jewish Community Center day care precisely because it was a Federally-mandated "gun-free zone!"

It does not appear that anyone is suing the government for establishing a target rich enviornments. Criminals with a lot less education than an engineer have also used such knowledge to their victims' detriment.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/01/24/furrow.plea.crim/

http://www.cnn.com/US/9908/12/california.shooting.01/

[jody]

127. 9th rules for incorporation in Nordyke and now against back-door gun-bans. Who would have thought

the 9th that once ruled the 2nd was a collective right in Silveira v. Lockyer would have changed.

Now if CA's GLBT community can get Prop 8 into federal court as an inalienable right and to the 9th appeals court one might expect real progress in recognizing GLBT rights as "inalienable" rights.

Exit polls from the last election report 4% of voters say they are gay or lesbian and there are about 210 million eligible voters.

That statistic suggests over 8.4 million citizens who are gay or lesbians have at least one thing in common with over 84 million gun-owners, we all must fight for rights that are inalienable and government is obligated to protect our rights against the tyranny of a simple majority vote.

[aikoaiko]

141. This is a good result for Glock, gun owners, supporters of the RKBA.

I'm glad to see the law was upheld.

I remember when this law was passed it was constructed narrowly to protect gun manufacturers, gun distributors, and gun dealers (FFLs) who comply with the law completely, but their gun happens to be used for criminal purposes after the gun is sold.

If any of the three knowingly funnel guns to criminals or produce/sell defective products, they can still be sued.