New York Times: The Right to Sue the Gun Industry
The editorial board of the New York Times doesn’t like guns. If you didn’t know that, welcome to your visit to This Ain’t Hell. Yesterday, they got their panties in a wad because it looks like the living victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting won’t get to sue gun manufacturers for the horrible tragedy that occurred there because of the pesky 2005 law known as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
[The victims] are attempting to sue the gun manufacturer, Remington; the wholesaler; and a local retailer for recklessness in providing the weapon to the consumer marketplace “with no conceivable use for it other than the mass killing of other human beings.”
The question of whether the lawsuit will be allowed to proceed is at issue because Congress, prodded by the gun lobby, in 2005 foolishly granted the gun industry nearly complete immunity from legal claims and damages from the criminal use of guns.
They claim that gun manufacturers are culpable because they used “macho military terms in marketing” the firearms, phrases like “military-proven performance” and “the ultimate combat weapons system.” My testosterone rose 10% just by typing those phrases. Good thing that my scary black guns are locked up in my safe and I forgot the combination.
Beyond seeking damages, the Sandy Hook parents aim to force the AR-15 off the market. “The AR-15 is the weapon of choice for shooters looking to inflict maximum casualties, and American schools are on the forefront of such violence,” they say.
There are millions of AR-style rifles already in the hands of law-abiding citizens. If the weapons were the cause of the shootings, it would seem reasonable to expect news of hundreds of these incidents everyday. Oddly enough, millions of gun owners refrain from shooting thousands of people everyday.
In seeking justice for their children and their community, these parents could help rein in a runaway industry and reduce a grievous national affliction.
I understand that the victims want to see someone punished for what happened to their children, but, the truth is that the two people responsible, the shooter and his mother are already dead. The “runaway industry” is driven by the fear that these people put in gun owners that they’re coming for our guns. It’s all demand side economics. If there wasn’t a market, there would be no guns – and the market is among law-abiding American citizens. And that “grievous national affliction” is one of our God-given rights.
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists
Suing a gun manufacturer for what a mass murderer did with a stolen weapon is the same thing as suing a vehicle manufacturer over a stolen car that was used in a bank robbery.
And these people are just pissed off because Lanza didn’t end up in a courtroom where they can weep and sniffle.
I remember that right after the so called sandy hook thing, that a group went there to try and find some victims, some victims relatives…anything…they could not find even one victim that was killed, that the whole thing was a false flag created by the a.h. in the white house!!
So, hundreds of people engaged in this conspiracy? And, not one of them has so much as uttered a word about it since then? These folks actually should all be working for the CIA and NSA, there’d never be another leak, or another Snowden.
A knee-jerk feeling of fear is magnitudes easier than logic, reason and understanding. You would figure the college educated staff of the NYT would have accidentally run into that notion whilest at those institutions of higher education.
Unless they’ve completely stopped challenging people….(gasp)
My god, what have we done?
And what exactly would happen to the proceeds from such a lawsuit?
While I totally understand the pain of the parents, 1–no amount of money will bring back their children, 2–no lawsuit will remove these weapons from the hands of law-abiding citizens, 3–there are in fact many uses for these weapons besides “mass killing” as they so quaintly put it, 4–improper use of a tool does not open the manufacturer to liability.
Many other products which are potentially lethal if misused are afforded protection from lawsuits. The gun is a tool, nothing more.
Weapons should be regulated like any other product. If they are manufactured in a defective manner which causes injury, marketed to individuals who are prohibited from purchase (like tobacco to 5 years), marketed and sold illegally (selling to felons), or manufacture and sell prohibited weapons like fully automatic weapons then they manufacturer should be subject to possible lawsuits just like any other product. They should not be shielded from everything.
Bullshit. In the case of Sandy Hook, Lanza murdered his mother to obtain the guns. He obtained the guns illegaly. What law would have stopped that?
Show me any gun manufacturer that markets to felons, etc. And even if they did, the background check system is geared to stop those sales, or should if it works, which it doesn’t far too often.
We’re not talking about a defective product here. We’re talking about a product used improperly. In that case, the manufacturer is not liable, nor should they be held so.
Right, a manufacturer defect is not covered by this law but that’s the route these parents were duped into going with therefor the suit was toilet paper to begin with.
To your second and third points, a company that breaks the law is not protected. To that point a manufacturer (see below) that didn’t follow the rules, the onerous nature of which notwithstanding, was convicted of a felony and his life was turned upside down.
Now, how exactly is the industry to blame for the actions of the users of their products again?
http://www.courant.com/breaking-news/hc-stag-arms-guilty-plea-federal-court-1223-20151222-story.html
But they’re not shielded from liability for selling defective weapons, selling to minors, selling to felons, or selling automatic weapons, right?
On the off chance that you simply don’t know gun laws, every point you raised is already covered in loaw and the 2005 law in questions specifically notes many of these as acxeptions to the immunity.
The reason the law was passed was because the anti-gun movement likes to file enormously expensive frivolous lawsuits which, even if spurious or even ridiculous, cost the gun manufacturers literally millions to defend. There was no secret – these activists were trying to bankrupt an entire legally functioning industry. The law only shields from lawsuits from legally manufactured and sold weapons. You may also want to look at the marketing plans of gun makers – they all sell to DISTRIBUTORS and between the manufacturer and general public can be several layers of buyers and sellers. There is even differential pricing between ‘stocking’ dealers who keep a physical store stocked with inventory and ‘non-stocking’ dealers who work on a order-only basis. This is one of the most tightly regulated and structured businesses in the country.
MGB. I will do this slowly. Here goes: No manufacture of a firearm made or sold in the United States is shielded from liability for a manufacturing defect.
If you read my comments very, very slowly you will understand my point. The manufacture of fire arms should be treated NO differently than any other product.
I did, and your point must be that firearms manufacturers should not be excepted from liability for placing a defective product on the market, that they should be treated the same as manufacturers of other products, in that regard. Your point suggests that firearms manufacturers are treated differently. Otherwise, what sense would it make for you to state what you did? It would be akin to my commenting that police ought to treat short drivers of vehicles no differently than they do tall drivers. One would be correct to infer from such a comment that I believe short and tall drivers are treated differently. By the way, lest you think my understanding of your comment was unique, read the others who responded. So, maybe you want to make your point differently or explain what it is that you meant.
“The manufacture of fire arms should be treated NO differently than any other product having Constitutional protection.”
There. That looks better.
We read just fine, thank you very much.
You however, may want to take some writing classes, and practice clarity.
Unless you are just another SJW doing a a drive-by. In which case, never mind, because no amount of classes attended will change a blessed thing.
An awful lot of discussion going on about regulating something that the law already addresses, yet no discussion about regulating the defective fuckwits who break those same laws.
Shall not be infringed… Suck it up buttercup.
Should Ford, GMC, Honda, etc.. be sued because someone uses one of their products and kills someone? How about the manufactures of common household products that when combined together will also be capable of being used to commit extreme acts of violence and mayhem?
No, we hold the criminal accountable.
So….when do we start suing GMC, Ford, and Dodge for all those people killed by drunk drivers using their products?
Odd how the public will point out the dangers of drunk drivers, not the vehicles….yet it would appear the opposite is the case with firearms….blame the inanimate object, not the criminal.
The hypocrisy is a bit thick in the air…..
+1000
Thanks, Doc.
You are all missing the main reason for the lawsuit. It was not filed for the primary purpose of gaining redress for the grieving parents. As Silentium said, no amount of money will return their children. The suit is designed to intimidate and bring legal ruin to the firearms industry. They can’t take our guns legally so they try to eliminate the source of those guns much like the way they try to eliminate the sources of our ammunition.
The lesson to be learned here is that given ANY chance, the gun grabbers will find a way to disarm the rest of us. That is why those here who say they will not vote for the Republican candidate if it is not their candidate, are being foolish in the extreme. If the Democrats win the upcoming election, they will pack the Supreme Court with liberal, gun-grabbing justices and then our only recourse will be to physically fight for our guns.
Voting for the Republican candidate, even if you have to hold your nose, is a far better option.
What you say regarding the gun-grabbers’ goal is 100% on the money. Whether it be going after potential buyers of firearms, going after marketers, going after the manufactuerers, the sellers, the suppliers of material used in the manufacture of firearms, the makers of ammo, the ammo itself, or the politicians and appointees of those who approve/disapprove permits–the goal is to get the firearms. First, the makers must be stopped to halt the feeder stream. Then, the guns all ready out here must be gotten. It’s all quite simple but always clothed in a for-the-children argument. (“What’s wrong with you? Do you want to see more innocent kids die?!”) In that regard, how many firearms were used to bring down the Twin Towers? How many to raze the OK City federal building? Gas and explosive devices are much better at killing on a large scale than are rifles, despite what the NYT says.
Cav, you say, “What you say regarding the gun-grabbers’ goal is 100% on the money.”
Does that mean you do not agree with my second point about the justices?
No, it doesn’t mean that at all. I wholeheartedly agree that the rather tenuous, but now-controlling, view of the 2nd A. by the Supreme Court can easily go the other way, with Justice Scalia’s passing. In fact, I see that–future rulings by the Court–as the chief threat to the 2nd A. And just as the country rather moved right along after a fundamental right to gay marriage was discovered by five justices, it can easily be a 5-4 decision “correcting” prior rulings and finding that the right to bear arms is inextricably linked–and dependent upon–an organized militia, not one comprised of free, armed men independent of one another. Inshort, for the 2nd A and other matters, the next Supreme Court justice put on the Court is EVERYTHING.
And the NYT, with all their lefty sycophants, has the right to act ignorant in public. Doesn’t mean that acting ignorant in public is a good thing for them to be wasting their energy doing.
Does the New York Times have armed security guards protecting their facilities? If so, then they need to reexamine their position on possession of firearms.
Whoa bud! Violence and threats are ok if you’re doing it for the good of the people! You don’t understand because you can’t see the bigger picture, you poor unenlightened puppet.
http://youtu.be/w_vgu4ewxVc
/big ol’ case of sarc btws
I am waiting for some perspiring attorney, perhaps from the Ft. Myers area, to file a class action lawsuit against the manufacturer and retail sellers of Air Jordan shoes. By selling a limited number of these shoes, in conjunction with a marketing campaign aimed primarily at young men who are prone to violence, it inevitably results in riots, assaults, and murder. Someone needs to think of the children. Won’t someone think of the children?
http://www.kare11.com/news/crime/2-shot-after-argument-over-air-jordans/69471139
Well, I’m heading out to the range in about an hour to get my freak on with an eeeeeeevil “assault weapon”. I may even become so whipped up that I rub my junk all over it!
(the previous sentences are sarcasm, but I am actually going to the range)
I live a half block from an elementary school and my obviously defective “assault weapon” has never once jumped up and ran down the street and started shooting. I can’t figure it out. There it sits, all cleaned, oiled, and ready to go and then………nothing.
The sad truth of the matter is that personal bias and fear are the cornerstone of the anti-gun community. None of them have a clue what they are talking about and feed off of each others fantasies like Rosie O’Donnell at a buffet. They have their own imaginations and put them out as fact, without ever knowing facts. It’s called projection.
Ted Kennedy’s driving killed more people than all of my guns put together. Those sniveling beta-types will never stop bawling while they whore for attention. What’s next, will they bawl for a knife ban like in England?
Sandy Hook is a tragedy of failed mental health care, not firearms safety. Lanza’s mother tried multiple times to get her son committed, but the government kept saying he wasn’t a threat to himself or others. It’s also a failure of the gun free zone laws. Lanza was able to bring his stolen firearms into the building, but the vice principal was unable to bring her pistol in to defend herself or the children.
However, it’s easier to blame the firearms and call for more laws than blame the existing laws that have failed.
OR the often lax enforcement of existing laws.
There is going to be even more unhappiness when the plaintiffs in this case learn they must pay trial/court costs.
If one wants no nuclear reactor accidents, the solution is simple: no nuclear reactors. Want no vehicle deaths? Have no vehicles. No plane crashes? No planes. Don’t want kids choking to death on balloons and hot dogs? Ban balloons and hot dogs. I all ready overstated the point. None of these things have been proposed for banning yet all contribute to or cause deaths. So, why firearms? It can’t be sheer numbers because those who would ban guns would ban hot dogs and balloons first if they really wanted to save the children. At the very least, they would insist on seat belts in all school buses. So that can’t be it. The reason, as I and others see it is that distinction between citizens and subjects. That’s all. I and others do not trust the government and we have every reason not to trust it. I like being a citizen. I don’t want to become a subject.
Ya know this sounds exactly like the story line to a 2003 movie based on the John Grisham novel, “Runaway Jury”. A woman decides to sue several gun manufacturers for the death of her husband in a mass shooting at a brokerage firm in New Orleans.
https://youtu.be/c80vGyzA0LI
What’s needed is law suits against the msm for their incompetence, their institutionalized idiocy, their malfeasance, their perfidy, their consistent and ongoing support for any and all enemy of the Republic, their lies, deceits and stupidities.
Nope. I have just as much regard for the main-stream press as you (that is, almost none at all) but if we allow lawsuits against the press for bias and assorted other malfeasance then police can arrest me for trying to convince you that I am right by expressing my opinion in public. I don’t like a lot of the opinions expressed by our current press but I don’t have a better system so let’s keep this sucky one instead of replacing it with a system that sucks even more.
Something else … In my opinion, the New York Times did not cause people in NYC to be liberal. I think that people in NYC are generally liberal (present company excepted) and the NYT says liberal things that they those liberal people want to hear.
My point: the liberal press is an annoyance to conservatives but they are not actually convincing moderates to be liberal or liberals to be more liberal. It is okay to be annoyed but we don’t need to actually fight back against the NYT — the real issue is the people in NYC, not their newspaper.
There will be no real loser in a war ever again, because all the people in either country can sue the gun manufacturers.