Quote :

"House clears bill giving gun firms lawsuit protection Bush signature is expected; many cases may be moot By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | October 21, 2005 WASHINGTON -- In a major victory for the gun lobby, the House of Representatives approved a bill yesterday that would shield gunmakers and sellers from liability lawsuits brought by shooting victims or their families -- a measure that is likely to cause dozens of pending cases against the industry to be tossed out of courts nationwide. The bill, which President Bush is expected to sign within days, would bar victims and municipalities from suing firearms manufacturers, importers, and dealers over crimes that may have been committed with guns they have made or sold. But in an unusual provision, when the bill becomes law it will apply retroactively to cases that are already in the judicial system. Antigun groups say they will challenge that aspect of the measure in court. The list of cases in jeopardy includes a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the family of Danny Guzman, a 26-year-old Worcester man who was shot to death in 1999 with an unmarked gun stolen by a employee of the plant that manufactured it. The House approved the bill 283 to 144, with 59 Democrats, mostly from Southern and Western states, joining all but four Republicans in voting ''yes." The bill, which passed the Senate in July, is the gun lobby's top legislative priority this year, and proponents argued that the industry needs protection from lawsuits designed to achieve gun control by bankrupting manufacturers."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/10/21/house_clears_bill_giving_gun_firms_lawsuit_protection?mode=PF

10/21/2005 10:06:11 AM

http://tinyurl.com/

10/21/2005 10:09:41 AM

good.

in the wake of the big tobacco thing, i agree with the spirit of this bill. it is the first step in making americans take some responsibility for themselves and their actions.

i would like to see more of the same including alcohol mfrs and video game companies.

10/21/2005 10:25:35 AM

^exactly

10/21/2005 10:27:35 AM

^^ agreed.

10/21/2005 10:39:48 AM

Glad to see one more type of frivolous lawsuit banned.

10/21/2005 10:45:04 AM

^^ i agree with your agreement

10/21/2005 11:10:22 AM

I agree with your agreement with the agreement

10/21/2005 11:14:32 AM

Quote :

"it is the first step in making americans take some responsibility for themselves and their actions."

I'm not sure I see how this bill does that. It seems to do the opposite. You can make something that's used to kill another person and not be responsible at all for it.

10/21/2005 11:31:09 AM

cars can kill people

so can kitchen knives

so can baseball bats.

guns aren't made, specifically, "to kill people." Well, some of them are, adn some aren't. Computers can be used to download illegal materials and kiddie porn. You can't sue the person who manufactured something because it was used ilegally unless it was INTENTIONALLY made to be used that way. As much as I'm sure gun makers aren't always the bastion of human rights, I doubt they're sitting in their offices going "YES, ANOTHER GUN MURDER! WE RULE!"

10/21/2005 11:38:57 AM

personally, i am responsible enough to own an apache attack helicopter. and they ARE specifically designed to kill people.

^^ what you're saying is that because something CAN be used to kill people, it shouldn't be on the market.

sweet merciful crap, lop off my hands because they can be used to choke someone.

10/21/2005 11:47:22 AM

Quote :

"guns aren't made, specifically, "to kill people." "

mostly they are

10/21/2005 11:48:24 AM

guns are specifically made to kill things

what you kill is your decision and your responsibility

10/21/2005 11:53:29 AM

i like to kill paper targets myself

with extreme prejudice

10/21/2005 11:56:00 AM

10/21/2005 11:57:10 AM

no, i agree with what you're saying.

i'm just adding that that's what i do with mine.

10/21/2005 11:58:44 AM

Quote :

"guns are specifically made to kill things what you kill is your decision and your responsibility"

ding ding ding

10/21/2005 12:19:45 PM

If only we could have done away with frivolous lawsuits specifically. There are so many other products that cannot be sold on the market because of these lawsuits. We not only need to worry about losing products we already enjoy but products we cannot have because the lawsuit would be inevitable.

At the car dealership, the salesman explained all the crap they are going through because of the introduction of batteries in the hybrid cars and how much risk they face by simply selling them. All they need is someone to get burned by battery acid after an accident and they are probably going to be forced to recall them all.

10/21/2005 12:42:39 PM

Sounds like the automotive company either hasnt taken adequate safety precautions to protect against acid burns, or they havent made their customers aware of the risks of operating a hybrid vehicle.

10/21/2005 1:55:14 PM

Quote :

""guns aren't made, specifically, "to kill people." ""

its total seredipidy that guns kill a lot of people. the gun makers are actually all making advanced remote control devices that turn off any appliance.

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST

10/21/2005 1:58:57 PM

I wonder how much this bill costed.

10/21/2005 2:02:33 PM

The real question is "how much will it cost to get the rest of the legal system fixed?"

10/21/2005 2:10:58 PM

Gun manufacturers make grips so fingerprints won't be found on a gun. Can they be accessories to a crime?

10/21/2005 9:46:00 PM

the glove industry needs to go down for it to

10/21/2005 10:02:53 PM

Maybe our justicial system should enforce the gun laws on the books and prosecute those who misuse firearms to the full extent of the law. I realize some people dislike firearms, some fear them, some see no need for them, etc., but it doesn't make sense to me to hold a manufacturer responsible for their product being used illegally. Other than to push an agenda of course.

If they produce a faulty product then obviously they should be held accountable.

10/21/2005 10:25:51 PM

Quote :

"the glove industry needs to go down for it to"

In cold weather and snow, people wear gloves to keep their hands warm. Glove manufacturers make money selling their product to people who want to keep their hands warm while they are outside in bad weather.

In the commission of a crime, people want guns that won't leave their fingerprints on the grip. Gun manufacturers make money selling their product to people who don't want their fingerprints left behind during a commission of a crime.

Both industries make money by catering to the needs of their customers. The difference is that shoveling snow is legal, murder is not.

10/22/2005 12:00:10 AM

Haha this thread backfired.

10/22/2005 9:38:13 AM

"fingerprints" cause corrosion
its not a crime to want a gun that stays looking nice

10/22/2005 9:43:22 AM

^ Beat me to it.

As I heard it, the "not leaving finger prints for the cops" was a secondary ability as well. Gun makers were long seeking ways to prevent their guns from corroding, this stuff does it.

Besides, they still leave finger prints on Everything else: bullets, slide, car door, etc. etc.

10/22/2005 10:01:32 AM

Aren't criminals now smart enough to know to not leave finger prints behind anyway?

10/22/2005 12:13:55 PM

Quote :

"good. in the wake of the big tobacco thing, i agree with the spirit of this bill. it is the first step in making americans take some responsibility for themselves and their actions. i would like to see more of the same including alcohol mfrs and video game companies. "

i can't understand how anyone could POSSIBLY not agree with this sentiment.

Quote :

"I'm not sure I see how this bill does that. It seems to do the opposite. You can make something that's used to kill another person and not be responsible at all for it. "

that's the most back asswards logic i've seen from anyone this side of pryderi or salisburyboy.

[Edited on October 22, 2005 at 12:51 PM. Reason : [/]]

10/22/2005 12:50:48 PM

how about steel manufacturers who knowingly supply the makers of these guns marketed for people killing?

10/22/2005 1:46:15 PM

not to mention the miners who extract the iron ore

or the people (or descendants of the people) who sold the land to be mined for iron ore which was turned into steel which was made into a gun which killed someone


or engineers and gunsmiths. well, to start with, it ought to be illegal to be a gunsmith. engineering institutions such as NCSU shouldn't be innocent in this whole mess either, since they train engineers who could quite possibly design a gun out of the steel which was made out of iron that was mined out of the ground that someone sold to a mining operation some years ago.


alternatively, i have an idea. is it so asinine to put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the person who pulled the trigger in an irresponsible and/or illegal manner?

a gun is just a tool. it is fundamentally the same as a hammer or knife.

10/22/2005 2:31:39 PM

This is a good bill and should definitely be extended to other industries. Its about time that American's stop trying to blame everyone but themselves for their actions.

10/22/2005 2:36:32 PM

Quote :

"Aren't criminals now smart enough to know to not leave finger prints behind anyway?"

i would hope so, if the crime's premeditated. It's hard to just have gloves on you in a pinch if you just happen to spot a house you want to break in. Why, if I had a nickel for...

... I've said too much

10/22/2005 7:36:20 PM

Lets all fear inanimate objects.

10/23/2005 2:33:32 PM

Um, If you bought a gun retail for the finger print thing so that you could use it in a crime, wouldnt it be pretty easy to trace the weapon back to you?

10/23/2005 4:51:27 PM

Quote :

"cars can kill people so can kitchen knives so can baseball bats. guns aren't made, specifically, "to kill people." Well, some of them are, adn some aren't. Computers can be used to download illegal materials and kiddie porn. You can't sue the person who manufactured something because it was used ilegally unless it was INTENTIONALLY made to be used that way. As much as I'm sure gun makers aren't always the bastion of human rights, I doubt they're sitting in their offices going "YES, ANOTHER GUN MURDER! WE RULE!""

holyshit i agree with dirtygreek, the world is coming to an end

10/24/2005 12:13:07 AM

This one will need to see some judicial review before it's brought to fruition.

I am wary of any law that attempts to curtail "frivolous" (or "activist," if you will) lawsuits, because the definition of "frivolous" tends to mean "any."

In general, if a lawsuit is truly "frivolous," then a judge will throw it out. As far as I am aware, judges are not paid by the lawsuit, so that is a reasonable assumption.

Furthermore, lawsuits are generally too specific to warrant "blanket" coverage as in this law. The decision on whether a lawsuit is indeed "frivolous" should be based on the merits of the case, in court, where the facts are properly heard.

I generally think people do have the right to air their grievances in court, and "reverse activism" -- making blanket statements about what kinds of lawsuits have merit -- is simply a bad approach. If a company is _truly_ liable, then they should be held as such, in a court of law, and they should pay an equitable amount for their culpability. Period.

And there _are_ instances in which a gun manufacturer should be held liable -- for example, if a hypothetical gun manufacturer marketed the gun as "great for killing people!" There is precedent for this kind of lawsuit in the P2P cases, and it is entirely equitable.

In general I don't think the Congress can come up with a "litmus test" for a "valid lawsuit" because it's just going to be too gray, and the courts will just be bogged down with wrangling over liability limitation concerns. Which is pointless -- after all, the whole idea behind such a bill is to curtail the court's decision-making in the matter.

10/24/2005 12:26:16 AM

i find it hard to envision a reasonable scenario in which a gun manufacturer should be held liable. the example you gave would never happen in a million years, and neither would anything else, because the last thing the gun manufacturers want to do is be more of a political lightning rod than they already are.

what's far more likely is the kind of political activism/Robin Hoodism/set aside common legal sense in favor of our own agena-ism that we've seen in, for example, suits against Big Tobacco.

i have more faith that no gun manufacturer would do something that they should truly be held liable for (because that would be suicide) than i have faith that no judge would allow his own political agenda to trump his obligation to properly exercise his authority, especially on such a hot-button political issue.

10/24/2005 1:05:35 AM

^

Gun manufacturers face far more than political pressure. They are also under pressure in the marketplace, and they have to differentiate themselves. So I rather disagree that my example was wholly unrealistic -- it was hyperbolic, though. I am not prepared to imagine the whole spectrum of marketing ploys a gun manufacturer might use; if I were, I'd hope to make money as a consultant rather than posting here.

I'm just saying: there is such a thing as aiding and abetting a crime, even if you're a corporation. And businesses are often forced to make difficult choices about when to risk political prosecution, or death in the competitive marketplace.

And more so, I just don't think the U.S. Congress is the proper venue for stopping the kind of "activism" you're talking about. In fact, I think that it's fundamentally stupid for them to do so. Because the people who will interpret this law, are the judges they're trying to stop.

The ability to file a lawsuit _is_ a civil liberty, so I am just not willing to swallow whole the idea that the Congress should limit it for the sake of an agenda.

If we want to stop unethical judges, the place to do so is in choosing and monitoring the judiciary itself.

10/24/2005 1:15:55 AM

Quote :

"The ability to file a lawsuit _is_ a civil liberty, so I am just not willing to swallow whole the idea that the Congress should limit it for the sake of an agenda."

It isn't the first time. See: Nuclear Power

Voters reject Brazil gun ban
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wobraz244482678oct24,0,723332.story?coll=ny-worldnews-headlines

Quote :

"Earlier this year, support for the ban was running as high as 80 percent. But in the weeks before the referendum, both sides were granted free time to present their cases on prime-time TV, and the pro-gun lobby began to grow. Analysts said the pro-gun lobby benefited from equal time on television in the final weeks of the campaign and that they cannily cashed in on Brazilian skepticism of the police. "They ask the question: 'Do you feel protected and do you think the government is protecting you?' and the answer is a violent no," said political scientist David Fleischer of the University of Brasilia."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173154,00.html

10/24/2005 8:10:33 AM

Quote :

"In general, if a lawsuit is truly "frivolous," then a judge will throw it out. As far as I am aware, judges are not paid by the lawsuit, so that is a reasonable assumption."

you forget that judges are just as political as any other elected position, and as such most have an agenda. some are pro, some are anti, not all act in the best interest of the law or the public, but more on which lobbyists are currently in their favor.

10/24/2005 8:26:31 AM

Judges also used to be able to reprimand lawyers which presented frivalis cases... The good old days I guess...

10/24/2005 9:50:02 AM

^^

I don't think I "forgot" that at all -- in fact I addressed it in my very post.

Smoker4:

Quote :

"And more so, I just don't think the U.S. Congress is the proper venue for stopping the kind of "activism" you're talking about. In fact, I think that it's fundamentally stupid for them to do so. Because the people who will interpret this law, are the judges they're trying to stop."

10/24/2005 7:29:45 PM

Smoker4--

If I buy a gun and then shoot and kill someone, do you think that, in general, the gun company should also be liable? A gun does have legitimate uses and guns, unlike most P2P, are not marketed with a "great for killing people" tagline.

[Edited on October 24, 2005 at 8:02 PM. Reason : I understand what you're saying, but I want to see where you stand on guns specifically.]

10/24/2005 8:02:03 PM

Why not let the courts decide which cases are frivolous?

10/24/2005 11:33:53 PM

why did they used to make us trade and grade each other's tests in elementary school?


not to mention the fact that i find it VERY hard to envision a scenario where a lawsuit against a gun manufacturer because a gun was used to shoot someone wouldn't be frivolous.

10/25/2005 1:50:36 AM

i thought it was so the teachers could save time

10/25/2005 1:54:14 AM