Gun makers soon to be safe from lawsuits.

[pbman]

I find it strange that the USG is protecting the gun industry, but is suing the tobacco industry.
.

Their is no money in guns to speak of.

Anyways read this

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051020/ap_on_go_co/congress_guns_16

"Our laws should punish criminals who use guns to commit crimes, not law-abiding manufacturers of lawful products," Bush said in a statement.

The House voted 283-144 to send the bill to the president after supporters, led by the National Rifle Association, proclaimed it vital to protect the industry from being bankrupted by huge jury awards. Opponents, waging a tough battle against growing public support for the legislation, called it proof of the gun lobby's power over the Republican-controlled Congress.



See that part in bold, that says the public supports the law, that normaly democracy in action.

Calling public support, proof of the gun lobbys power is a lie. If the public didn't support it, and the lawmakers did, then it would be proof of the gun lobbys power.

But most liberals don't have the power of though, sufficant to see that, tiny bit of logic.

"This legislation will make the unregulated gun industry the most pampered industry in America," said Kristen Rand, director of the Violence Policy Center.

And look at this spin,they call it a pampered industry, when people have to pass background checks on every purchase.

Meanwile back in reality, car dealers don't have to check and see that car purchasers have a valid drivers licence even. Car purchaseres don't have to get pre-aproval from the federal gov't.

Now take a guess witch of these products killmore people.

 

[pbman]

http://www.big-boys.com/articles/womancop.html

I'm starting to think cops shouldn't be allowed guns only regular citizens should have them.

 

[Rentonite]

I have been to Bulls eye shooting range and gun shop down in Tacoma Many times.
Malvo STOLE the rifle they used in the DC sniper thing.
They Shoplifted it, he admitted to shop lifting the rifle before all the acusations where leveled at the Bulls eye gun shop
It was interesting to see the Anti Gun press try to crawfish when the news broke of the rifle being stolen, rather than being illegally sold.
There where several commentators trying to keep the argument going that Bulls Eye was still some sort of shady operation....
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The issues the BATFE had with Bulls Eye gun shop was caused by a change in book keeping procedures, The Batfe had changed their requirements and there had been some confusion on how to fill out the new forms correctly.
There where many many gun shops that had recieved inncorrect instructions From the Batfe on bookeeping requirements.
They still got in to trouble even though they where doing exactly what they had been instructed to do.
later it was found that All the AR-15 rifles that where supposedly missing or had been illegally sold where there all along.
After an exaustive inventory it was found that the malvo rifle was the only gun stolen that year.
Bulls Eye could be concidered a poor bookeeper but the place is huge with over a million dollars in stock just on the show room floor,
and that does not include the firearms that are behind the counter.
The practice of keeping a minimal staff present during the day and only haveing more people present in the evenings is now obviously bad judgement.

The amount of grief they have had to endure because of malvo has been un necessary.
Bulls Eye is completly blameless
The meaness of the "well meaning people" that want to fight crime has been remarkable.
This latest legislation is neccessary because of how easily the courts are manipulated by special interest groups, manipulated to the point that logic has no meaning, it is an abuse of power by judges, they seem to answer to no one.

Hopefully this new law will help......

 

[pbman]

Thanks for clearing that up.

I had heard that before, but forgot the details.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Your calling it a lie is a lie.

The liberals were missingusing their power to attack a legal product they didn't like.

Kind of like if religiouse conservatives went after condom or sex toy makers.

Sex toys and guns are both legal products.

One enjoys spicific constitional protection, and the other doesn't.

But thats not the point.

The point is that as a constitional republic, we have to respect others rights, even if we don't like their product or use.

I believe the right to bear arms is protected, not the right to manufacture arms.

In the eyes of the law, all entities, from people on the street, to corporations, to the government, are deemed to be 'individuals'. Remington is an individual in the same way that you are.

And it bothers me to see the govt granting special immunity to certain individuals. It weakens the old adage that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.

Personally, I don't think that gun makers should be held responsible if a criminal shoots someone with one of their products. On the other hand, I think that if what the manufacturer is doing is right in law, then that right ought to be provable in a court of law.

The problem with the US, is that their litigation system isn't 'loser pay', like it is here and elsewhere.

What that means is that if you bring an expensive but frivolous lawsuit that you ultimately lose, you will be whacked with a big bill for the costs involved in the litigation. It means you have to think carefully and choose wisely before you go to court.

All it would take is for one or two of these lawsuits to fail under that system, with the losing advocacy group or whatever ending up bankrupted by their frivolous claim, and such lawsuits would cease.

Such a system is, to me, preferable to having the govt handing out special 'get out of jail' cards to its friends.

 

[pbman]

I believe the right to bear arms is protected, not the right to manufacture arms.

.

I dissagree, we have the right to manufactual all legal products equaly.

And guns probably kill less per shot than cars do per mile anyways......

Anyways, it was neccessary to curb the liberals abusing the courts and powers of the gov't, against a perfectly legal product they don't like.

If we didn't belive in the constition we could use the same tactics against legal liberal products.


Their are 40,000 house fires a year caused by candels.

They serve no usefull purpose, except when the power goes out. We could pass a bunch of laws severly limiting their use, and possesion, and save countless lives and or we could sue the manufactures every time a house catches on fire...............

But that would be silly.

We live in a free country, people have the right to do stupid things with candles..........

And i agree with the looser pay system, but the trial lawyers have to much money and power since the won the tobbaco settlement.

They have a complet stranglehold on the democratic party, far in excess of the NRA does.

But look at the money each group has, a million dollers in a lot for the NRA, its nothing for the trial lawyers......

Maybee with a new supream court, we can start beating them back, and make some changes.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I dissagree, we have the right to manufactual all legal products equaly.

And guns probably kill less per shot than cars do per mile anyways......

Anyways, it was neccessary to curb the liberals abusing the courts and powers of the gov't, against a perfectly legal product they don't like.

If we didn't belive in the constition we could use the same tactics against legal liberal products.


Their are 40,000 house fires a year caused by candels.

They serve no usefull purpose, except when the power goes out. We could pass a bunch of laws severly limiting their use, and possesion, and save countless lives and or we could sue the manufactures every time a house catches on fire...............

But that would be silly.

We live in a free country, people have the right to do stupid things with candles..........

And i agree with the looser pay system, but the trial lawyers have to much money and power since the won the tobbaco settlement.

They have a complet stranglehold on the democratic party, far in excess of the NRA does.

But look at the money each group has, a million dollers in a lot for the NRA, its nothing for the trial lawyers......

Maybee with a new supream court, we can start beating them back, and make some changes.

I think you underestimate the amount of money, and influence, the NRA has.

 

[spring-peeper]

The tobacco industry has more pull than the NRA? I find that a bit difficult to believe.

It was hardly a surprise that the bill made it through congress. Last year, a 10-year-old ban on assault weapons was allowed to expire amid fierce lobbying from the NRA. The latest immunity bill, already approved by the Senate, now goes to the White House to be signed into law.

source

Legislation to increase the minimum wage from it's 1997 level of $5.15 was defeated.

The next industry that is about to be protected is the fast food industry.

Oh well, big business contributes a lot of money to government parties and need protection from "frivolous lawsuits that clog our courts, hurt the economy, cost jobs and burden US businesses" (Bush quote). Glad to see them get their monies worth.

 

[pbman]

I think you underestimate the amount of money, and influence, the NRA has.

The NRA is very poor in comparison to the trial lawers.

What the NRA has is enough supporters, who trust their judgment on who to vote for. Candidates live or die, with their NRA rating. A low NRA rating is the kiss of death, in most states.

Thats democracy in action- the power of the people and so on.....

 

[pbman]

The tobacco industry has more pull than the NRA? I find that a bit difficult to believe.


source

Legislation to increase the minimum wage from it's 1997 level of $5.15 was defeated.

The next industry that is about to be protected is the fast food industry.

Oh well, big business contributes a lot of money to government parties and need protection from "frivolous lawsuits that clog our courts, hurt the economy, cost jobs and burden US businesses" (Bush quote). Glad to see them get their monies worth.

Your not following, i said trial lawyers.

The tabbaco industries money didn't do them any good, the gov't and the trial lawers have it all now.

And when it comes to guns, their is like zero money in the industry. The moeny the nra gets is from its membership.

Most gun makers are broke or close to.

Their are 300 million guns in the us, its not like we actually need to produce or buy more of them, the market is way over saturated.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Okay, seriously now. I should know better than to get into any gun arguments, bad fridge, slap wrist, should drink less. But this is a clear case of giving benefits to one industry that aren't granted to others.

Assume the whole thing about trial lawyers and activist judges is true. If the system is so unfair that it would let companies be unjustly penalised, what possible justification could there be for giving an exemption to just one industry, who happen mysteriously to be supporters of the current administration? Surely the only logical thing to do would be to reform the system that gives rise to these injustices - and as a matter of urgency, since without reliable civil law all of the free market justifications fall apart.

 

[pbman]

Okay, seriously now. I should know better than to get into any gun arguments, bad fridge, slap wrist, should drink less. But this is a clear case of giving benefits to one industry that aren't granted to others.
.

Thats because the liberals are blatatly missusing the courts against the gun makers, making legal and safe products, it they make guns that are not safe and the barrels blow up in your face when you shoot them, they can still be sued.

If liberals start suing car makers for making cars or knive makers for making guns, or toatster makers for making good toasters, we can add them to the list as needed.

That would only be fair.

But so far gun makers are the only ones who make legal products that the govent has to aprove each sale on, that are being sued. If the liberals go after candle makers who "cause" 40,000 fires a year, we can protect them as well.

But i doubt they will, liberals love candles, and the love the freedom to buy them without gov't interferance, no matter how many people die needlessly.

 

[pbman]

The Issue
Some candles have design flaws that increase the risk of fire. Others may contain materials that pose health hazards, especially for children. There are a number of precautions you can take to reduce health and safety risks when you burn candles.

Background
Every year in Canada, human error is responsible for starting a number of candle fires. Some of the frequent mistakes people make include:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/iyh-vsv/prod/candle-bougie_e.html

Look at that candles with design flaws even.

I shocked that they are not being sued, by the liberals.

But if they sued them, then they wouldn't be hypocrits.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

You're ignoring my point about the general case vs this specific case and that one industry is getting special protection, but... okay, work with me on this one.

Say a gun company was involved in encouraging the illegal sales of guns. How would they be prosecuted with this legislation?

 

[pbman]

You're ignoring my point about the general case vs this specific case and that one industry is getting special protection, but... okay, work with me on this one.

Say a gun company was involved in encouraging the illegal sales of guns. How would they be prosecuted with this legislation?

The federal gov't should be sued as they have final rights to aprove or dissaprove all individual sales of handguns.

And quite being so vauge their were lots of cites involved in trying to drive honest gunmakers out of buisness, they all used a differnt pretext in their lawsuits.

What town and gun maker are you thinking about?

And would you support laws that force car makers to be repsonible for how their cars are used?

Yes or no.

They sell them to people who don't even have licences you know.

It perfectly legal.

And how about those greedy candle makers, would you suppot a total ban on their use, since they are not needed, and they cause 40,000 fires a year?

Guns are usefully for self defense and hunting, candles are usefull for nothing, except when the power goes out.........

I think we need to outlaw candles, so liberals get a taste of their own medicen.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

So, you think lawsuits against the federal government should be the only recourse of citizens? They should be locked out of any civil law?

Presumbaly you think that the only way citizens should be allowed to prohibit indecent materials being sold in their locality should be by petitioning the state directly, too.

 

[pbman]

So, you think lawsuits against the federal government should be the only recourse of citizens? They should be locked out of any civil law?
.

Citizens are not suing, its the gov't suing.

And yes, they can sue themselve, and leave us in peace.

Presumbaly you think that the only way citizens should be allowed to prohibit indecent materials being sold in their locality should be by petitioning the state directly, too.

Of course, everything is legal until laws are passed.

Then its up to the state to inforce those laws.

If indecent materials are legal in a location, they should enjoy the same rights as gun makers.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Citizens are not suing? Pardon?

When I say "the state" I mean the feds, sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

[pbman]

Citizens are not suing? Pardon?
.

No they are not.

Their is no money in it, so the trial lawers are not invloved.

The city governments are suing, and the feds at the time put them up to it.

These are municipale lawsuits,not private individuals.

May 9 -- House bill would cut off municipal gun suits. A proposed "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" would defend interstate commerce in guns from lawsuits brought on behalf of hostile local jurisdictions. As of mid-April the bill had 215 co-sponsors in the House. "When 219 members co-sponsor it the bill would likely be voted on by the full House. Four more co-sponsors would help bring the battle between the gun banners and the firearms industry to a swift and honorable conclusion." (Tanya Metaksa, "Stop the War Against the Gun Industry", FrontPage, Apr. 16; H. Sterling Burnett, National Center for Policy Analysis, "Congress should stop lawsuits against legal firearms, Apr. 18; "House GOP seeks to end handgun suits", AP/Washington Times, Apr. 19). (DURABLE LINK)

http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/02/may1.html#0509b

 

[FridgeMagnet]

That's a proposed state bill, that's not a lawsuit. (And you're against state's rights now?)

 

[pbman]

That's a proposed state bill, that's not a lawsuit. (And you're against state's rights now?)

I was referencing the fact that the lawsuits in question were municipal.

Many states including our own,outlawed them a long time ago.

Google the issue up a bit, you not up on the details.

 

[pbman]

ILA report Latest legislative news from inside the NRA Institute for Legislntive Action

In a decision announced August 8, the Michigan Court of Appeals unanimously rejected lawsuits filed by Detroit and Wayne County, Mich., against the firearm industry. The court ruled that such suits were barred by a law enacted in 2000 and reversed a Wayne County Circuit judge who had allowed the lawsuits to continue.

Commenting on the recent decision, Sturm, Ruger & Co. President Stephen Sanetti said: "Once again, an appellate court has recognized that the wrong plaintiffs have improperly attempted to sue the wrong defendants under failed legal theories, based upon the actions of criminals thousands of miles distant, over whom we have no control."

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3623/is_200310/ai_n9321926

 

[pbman]

(WCBS) Using a simple premise, making streets safer by reducing the number of illegal guns and citing a specific state public nuisance law, New York is becoming the first state in the country to sue gun manufacturers, importers and wholesalers, Newsradio 88's Peter Haskell reports.

Attorney general Eliot Spitzer explained what the state will try to prove in court.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/06/26/null/main209438.shtml

These are city and state govenments suing.

NOt individuals.

They were just abusing their local power, to hassle people making legal products.

 

[newharper]

Sorry to butt in, but my babelfish choked earlier on Rentonite's use of 'crawfish', and I'd love to hear a translation if possible.

 

[spring-peeper]

You're ignoring my point about the general case vs this specific case and that one industry is getting special protection, but... okay, work with me on this one.

Say a gun company was involved in encouraging the illegal sales of guns. How would they be prosecuted with this legislation?

Then it falls into a different area of the justice system.

Actually, this seems to be the first of many such legislations aimed at protecting the business and an attempt to wean the general US population off of the never-ending class action suits, imo. Next up, fast food.

Have you been watching this obession with suing over here? Coffee sellers being sued for having the coffee hot would be a good example what is being a culture of "it's not my fault, that I abused the product - it is the fault of the person who made it".

Personally, I applaud his efforts.

 

[spring-peeper]

Your not following, i said <snip>

Your not following, we are on the same side.

 

[pbman]

Your not following, we are on the same side.

You agree that individuals have the right to own effective means to self defense?

And/or that companies have the right to make legal products.

 

[pbman]

T

Have you been watching this obession with suing over here? Coffee sellers being sued for having the coffee hot would be a good example what is being a culture of "it's not my fault, that I abused the product - it is the fault of the person who made it".

Personally, I applaud his efforts.

Your turning into quite a republican.

Tort Reform
Republicans believe that our legal system should run efficiently and fairly. We oppose the abuse of our legal system and strongly support tort reform, including, but not limited to, punitive damage reform, product liability reform, and class action lawsuit reform. Visit the American Tort Reform Association for more detailed information on the important, yet often overlooked, issue of tort reform.

http://www.okgop.com/views.asp

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Coffee sellers being sued for having the coffee hot

except that, despite the efforts of various industry shills to discredit it, that was a case of an industry serving coffee at a ridiculous temperature that could cause second degree burns within two seconds because it suited their logistics, not warning anybody of it, and having been previously censured by courts on the exact same issue

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Do you think that if spree-killers or serial murders had a really well-funded pressure group behind them, they could also pay some sleazebag politicians to legislate their responsibility for the consequences of their actions away?