It's Time to End Legal Immunity for the Gun Industry - Where Do Progressives Stand?

[TomCADem]

Last edited Mon Feb 19, 2018, 08:51 PM - Edit history (1)

We need to know where our electeds stand. Do they stand with gun manufacturers? Or, will they end the immunity for gun manufacturers?

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/42522-it-s-time-to-end-legal-immunity-for-the-gun-industry

In November 1998, the largest tobacco manufacturers in the country entered into a "master settlement agreement" with the attorneys general of 46 states in order to settle public health lawsuits that threatened to beggar the industry. The attorneys general had sued on the grounds that they had incurred immense Medicaid costs as the result of the tobacco industry's negligent marketing practices, causing millions of people to get hooked on cigarettes and suffering health effects that burdened the state health systems.

That same month, the City of Chicago filed a lawsuit against 22 gun manufacturers and sellers of guns in the Chicago suburbs and surrounding areas for causing a "public nuisance" in supplying and selling guns around the City at a level well above what the lawful gun market could support. The City's theory of the case was that the manufacturers and sellers must have known that the guns would end up on the illicit secondary market -- that is, on the streets of Chicago, where violence was continuing at high rates.

The case wended its way through the court system for six years, finally being dismissed by the Illinois Supreme Court in November 2004. Chicago's suit was one of several that had been filed along similar lines -- all inspired by the success of the public suits against the tobacco companies. Most of these suits suffered similar ends by 2005 -- when Congress passed the Protecting Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) which granted the gun industry immunity from civil liability for the unlawful use of guns except in narrow circumstances.

The PLCAA effectively exempted this one industry from the type of product liability and nuisance litigation that just about every other industry has to protect itself against: liability for the foreseeable misuse of their products. This immunity acted as a second shield for gun manufacturers and sellers, who already enjoy some level of protection from product liability suits because they traffic in "inherently dangerous" products, which users know are dangerous. Therefore, users themselves assume a significant level of risk for these products' use.

[Wwcd]

1. Good question that deserves discussion & answers

[TomCADem]

2. Reuters - Las Vegas shooting victims file lawsuit against bump stock makers - Cowards?

Last edited Mon Feb 19, 2018, 11:45 PM - Edit history (1)

It is insane that manufacturers of bump stocks should escape liability for creating a product whose purpose is to increase the lethality of a gun and circumvent the law.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lasvegas-shooting-lawsuit/las-vegas-shooting-victims-file-lawsuit-against-bump-stock-makers-idUSKBN1CF2IC

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A lawsuit seeking to represent the victims of the Las Vegas rampage, the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history, was filed against the makers of so-called bump stocks, which the shooter used to achieve a near-automatic rate of fire.

The proposed class action lawsuit, filed in state court in Clark County, Nevada, over the weekend and announced on Tuesday, accuses Slide Fire Solutions and other unnamed manufacturers of negligence leading to the infliction of emotional distress on thousands of people who witnessed or were injured in the Oct. 1 shooting at a Las Vegas music festival.

* * *
Authorities said shooter Stephen Paddock’s ability to fire hundreds of rounds per minute over a 10-minute period from his perch in a 32nd-floor hotel suite was a major factor in the high casualty count. Paddock, 64, killed himself before police stormed his suite.

Bump stocks allow semiautomatic rifles to operate as if they were fully automatic machine guns, which are heavily restricted in the United States.

[Motownman78]

3. Bernie Sanders voted against

making Gun Manufacturers liable for shooting deaths.

[TomCADem]

4. Bernie Sanders On AR-15s: Theyre Not For Hunting. Theyre For Killing Human Beings

You're kidding. Here is Bernie LOUDLY denouncing guns as killing machines. I can't see how he would support a bill making gun manufacturers immune from such suits. Here he is saying that AR-15s are not for hunting. They are for killing people.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-guns_us_5a89ad60e4b004fc31934edb

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has once again called for a ban on the sale of assault weapons in the wake of the Parkland, Florida, school shooting that left 17 dead last Wednesday.

During a Sunday appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” the former Democratic presidential candidate said that, for three decades, he has “believed we should not be selling assault weapons” like the accused gunman’s AR-15.

“These weapons are not for hunting,” he said. “They’re for killing human beings.”

He also said Congress should close the so-called gun show loophole ― the lack of federal rules mandating background checks on the sale of firearms between privates sellers.

[Motownman78]

6. Not kidding

Look at his voting record in 2005 on the Bill for limiting gun manufacturer's liability. All the OP wanted to know is which progressives would support making gun manufacturers liable. Sanders was one who didn't, and in all truth, was the right vote. We do not make car manufacturers liable if someone runs over a bunch of people with a Ford.

[LexVegas]

8. Jesus Fucking Christ. nt

[TomCADem]

9. Increase in accidental deaths follows spike in gun sales, study finds

What do you mean? Car manufacturers are sued all the time even with accidents. Also, what about accidental gun deaths? Why should gun manufacturers be immune?

https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/07/health/gun-sales-accidental-deaths-study/index.html

(CNN)After 26 children and educators were gunned down at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012 and President Barack Obama talked about increasing gun control, Americans bought more guns. But instead of offering protection, at least in some cases, the sales increased the chances that people would be accidentally shot and killed, according to a study published Thursday in Science magazine.

An additional 20 children and 40 adults, beyond what would be expected, died in accidental gun violence in the five-month period after Sandy Hook, the study found. This is considered a statistically significant increase during a time in which, the authors estimate, 3 million additional guns were sold beyond the general rate at which people typically buy guns.

No other spike in accidental deaths "of that magnitude" matches what happened after Sandy Hook, the authors wrote, and the states that had the biggest increase in sales saw the biggest increase in accidental gun deaths. The states with the smallest increase in gun sales saw the smallest number of additional accidental deaths.

The authors suggest that these numbers again confirm the theory that increasing access to guns increases the risk of accidents.

[Motownman78]

11. Car manufacturers are only sued

if their product is defective, not if the person driving that car runs over a dozen people and kills them. We do not make companies liable for Illegal use of their product in the commission of a crime. Sanders vote in this matter was correct.

I have a question. Do you support making Jack Daniels responsible for the drunk driver that just killed a family of five?

[TomCADem]

16. Then Why Change the Law? Why Do They Need Immunity?

I think you answer your own question. If a product is not defective, then the manufacturer will not be sued. Shouldn't a jury decide?

Car manufacturers do not have a broad immunity. Why should gun manufacturers be immune?

Likewise, to answer your question, does Jack Daniels have a special federal act immunizing them from a suit?

[Jim Lane]

95. The law was changed because of this problem: "assault with a deadly lawsuit"

It is not the case that huge numbers of suits are brought against auto manufacturers for deaths in motor vehicle accidents. Generally, those suits are brought only when there's a colorable basis for alleging a defect in design or manufacture as one cause of the accident.

Firearms manufacturers, on the other hand, were being hit with a lot of meritless lawsuits. Winning such a suit costs money.

Under the PLCAA, if death or injury resulted from a defect in the design or manufacture of the gun, that's still a valid basis for a cause of action against the manufacturer, just as it would be in the case of an auto manufacturer.

[Corgigal]

23. Ah no.

My husband was a traffic homicide detective, car manufacturers are sued all the damn time. Not because of a defect, because someone probably died and they are placing liability on the car manufacturer, plus a driver, possibly the roads and maintaining them. Each incident is based on each incident, with case law to pull from.



Time for case law on gun manufacturers. Let's begin.

[Motownman78]

42. I call BS, using the new vernacular

My father is a Litigation Specialist for an insurance company since 1990. He has never had a case where the car manufacturer was sued and lost UNLESS there was a defect involved.

[Corgigal]

54. Yeah,

Nope. Where did I type lost? I wrote sued, and it's still common.

[Hoyt]

36. Gun manufacturers could install safety devices, limit magazine size, etc.

They choose to sell what screwed up gun-humpers desire, that's on them. Sue them to high hell.

[Straw Man]

75. If you want it, then mandate it.

They choose to sell what screwed up gun-humpers desire, that's on them. Sue them to high hell.

Sue them for making a legal product? Doesn't pass the smell test. If you think certain features shouldn't exist, use the proper channels to make them illegal. Don't try to legislate through the courts.

[Hoyt]

83. Tobacco companies were sued, auto for not providing safety devices, etc.

What smells is gun irresponsible gun owners and promoters.

[TCJ70]

84. Do you have a source for the auto company being sued for not providing safety devices?

I've never heard that before...just curious.

[R B Garr]

103. +1, And what about that snotty nose medicine, Sudafed...

It was found to have a substance used to make crystal meth, and now it is regulated. Your name goes into some kind of Federal database even if you have a prescription. I had to sign something acknowledging such when I picked it up over the counter over 10 years ago.

Even cough syrup has to have a manager’s override, at least some of them.

Is codeine cough syrup still around anymore??

Some products are apparently just too dangerous to not be considered a public safety hazard.

[Initech]

71. When is the last time a car killed 58 and injured 500?

Seriously name one time. Not the same thing at all. Cars are not guns.

[Straw Man]

76. 2016.

When is the last time a car killed 58 and injured 500?

The truck attack in Nice killed 86 and injured 458. A bit lower on the injury toll than you asked for, but a higher death toll.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack

[Initech]

85. That doesn't excuse what happened.

17 kids and teachers are dead. Because of guns. You can't use another attack as a scapegoat. That is seriously stooping to the low of the hardcore gun nuts, who will do anything to ignore the fact that guns are used.

[Straw Man]

88. I merely answered your question.

No scapegoating involved. I'm sorry that you didn't like the answer, but it happens to be the truth.

[EX500rider]

93. If you didn't want a answer maybe you shouldn't have asked.

[Initech]

94. I'm just sick and tired of this damn argument every mass shooting.

Gun nuts will look for anything that causes death as an excuse for overlooking the fact that guns kill people. I've heard every stupid excuse from cars to swimming pools to anything that plugs into a wall socket. It's infuriating. All that matters is that the gun manufacturers will get their pay day and not a damn thing will get resolved until the next mass shooting. Something has got to break this cycle and I hope people wake up from this one.

[lapucelle]

14. Sanders voted to give gun manufacturers immunity.

Sanders voted against the Brady Bill five times.

[pnwmom]

15. Bernie voted FOR the PLCAA, which exempted the gun industry from civil liability laws

that other manufacturers of dangerous products are subject to.

[Iggo]

56. Keep fighting that primary!

[TomCADem]

59. Yes. Bernie Is Clearly Saying That AR-15s Are For Killing People...

...he would not protect the manufacturer of the AR-15 from liability for promoting and profiting a gun that has been repeatedly used for some of the worst mass shootings in the U.S. He might be strident, but he would not flip flop on such an issue.

[TCJ70]

5. I dont have a problem with the PLCAA...

...any product can be used for unlawful purposes. There are also still categories under which manufacturers and dealers can be held responsible. It’s not an all-encompassing release from any liability.

However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

As long as we have a second amendment guns will be manufactured and sold. That’s what needs to change first before any significant action on guns can be taken. Better vote for some Dem governors.

[TomCADem]

7. Why shouldnt the gun industry be liable for damage done by its products, just like anybody else?

I have a big problem with the PLCAA. Why do gun manufacturers get special treatment? Here is UC Berkeley Law Dean Eric Cheriminsy:

http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/california-forum/article178170691.html

It is time to stop giving the gun industry special protections that are not accorded to other businesses. In 2005, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which prevents gun companies from being sued by the victims of gun violence.

The NRA got it right when it called this “the most significant piece of pro-gun legislation in twenty years.” No other industry enjoys this special treatment.

* * *
If gun companies could be held liable the way all other manufacturers can be sued, they would not make such products or they would do far more to ensure the weapons could not be used for mass killings. But the 2005 Act dismissed all pending claims against gun manufacturers in both federal and state courts and preempted all future claims.

The Act could not be clearer in stating its purpose: “To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm caused solely by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.”

[TCJ70]

10. Do you have examples of other industries being held responsible in the way youre suggesting?

Like car makers being responsible for a perfectly working car being used for vehicular homicide?

[TomCADem]

21. Do Car Makers Enjoy A Federal Law Broadly Immunizing Them From Liability?

This is the point of repealing the immunity. Treat gun manufacturers like any other industry.

[TCJ70]

27. No. Youre ignoring the context of why the PLCAA came about...

....I bet if car manufacturers were being sued for liability in those cases there’d be a similar extension for them in the PLCAA.

[phleshdef]

78. Yes. If I decide to take out a side walk full of people with my Nissan Rogue...

...no one can sue Nissan for it. What you propose likely doesn't pass constitutional muster.

[kcr]

107. You are wrong. Nissan does not have such an exemption.

You and many others are confusing the likelihood of success with being legally barred from suing.

[phleshdef]

111. I'm not confusing anything. I'm talking about the real world end result.

And thats all that actually matters.

[Crunchy Frog]

66. Tobacco industry? Opioid manufacturers?

[TCJ70]

67. Im pretty sure those lawsuits come down to those industries misleading people...

...not because of any criminal use of their products. Not what’s being suggested here.

[Crunchy Frog]

68. Pretty sure that you're reaching, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

[R B Garr]

104. Exactly. Sudafed is Federally monitored. nt

[EX500rider]

12. So knife makers should be sued for the 1,500+ who get stabbed to death every year?

Which dwarfs the 350+- who get shot by rifles of all types every year.
Should bat makers and hammer makers be sued for the 500+- who get bludgeoned to death every year?

Or just firearms?



https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

[TomCADem]

18. Do Knife Manufacturers Have a Special Federal Law Immunizing Them?

nt

[EX500rider]

20. They aren't getting swamped with junk lawsuits in a backdoor attempt to bankrupt them like gun manuf

were.

[TomCADem]

22. Why not? Perhaps Because They Aren't Making Defective, Dangerous Products

Boohoo. Lets protect the poor gun manufacturers? They are making money hand over fist.

[EX500rider]

24. Gun makers can still be sued for defects.

[pnwmom]

19. All manufacturers and sellers should be subject to the same liability standards.

Gun manufacturers and sellers shouldn't get a free pass.

[EX500rider]

26. Gun makers can be sued for defects like every other industry.

What they can't be sued is for things out of their control.
They wholesale guns to a gun store who sells them to someone who passed the background check, how is the maker responsible for what that person does?
Same way Ford doesn't get sued for every DWI death that happens in a Ford.

[Demsrule86]

29. I don't want them to have any protection. They are careless about what they make and the danger it

poses...let them pay price for what they do...blood on their hands.

[EX500rider]

31. Long as it it legal to make and sell guns they aren't breaking any laws..

....regardless of your personal feelings.

[Demsrule86]

43. Same was true of tobacco....They need to be responsible for the deaths they cause.

[TCJ70]

47. Should tide be sued because people ate the pods?

Should the store selling them be sued as well? That’s where this logic ends.

[Demsrule86]

80. No. That is not where it ends...because if Tide had made their product more deadly if it was misused

then they could still have been held accountable. Guns have to go... I will not live in a god damned prison-afraid of these idiots...a guy walks in with a gun- an AR15, you can't do anything until he starts shooting and then it is too late....I see asshats with guns at the grocery store and one jerk showed up at church. He was escorted out by the cops.

[EX500rider]

92. Are you afraid of dying by falling? Poison? Car crash?

Because all those things kill 3 to 4 times the firearm homicide rate.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm

[kcr]

108. Actually, if they don't change the design? Yes, they should.

Children are eating them because they think they're candy. Seniors with dementia, same thing. They know this and yet choose to continue to make the product attractive to children and candy-like with total disregard of the danger and deaths it is causing. They could easily make the same product with the same level of effectiveness with a different, safer look and they choose not to because a more attractive and marketable product is more important to them.

[Demsrule86]

109. If tide made the pods extra poisonous knowing people ate them...than yes.

[EX500rider]

48. All cigarettes are know to cause cancer....

...with over 300 million guns in the US obviously all guns do not have bad side effects.
And smoking is not a Constitutional right.

[Demsrule86]

110. Not everyone who smokes gets cancer first of all and guns are an evil in our society...the murder

of of our kids must end. I consider 17 dead in Florida a very bad 'side effect' Cigarettes do not kill all who smoke them.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

64. Tobacco, used as directed, causes death.

Tobacco, used as directed, is not fit for the purpose it is sold - human consumption.

[EX500rider]

91. And what percentage of smokers got cancer?

And what percentage of guns kill someone?

[Demsrule86]

112. There is no way to know that but putting guns in the hands of murderous people is just plain stupid.

And don't tell me about mental health which the GOP cuts...96% of gun deaths are perpetrated by people who are not mentally ill. Some it seems care more about their guns then their kids.

[Jim Lane]

97. Tobacco companies have generally NOT been held responsible for the deaths they cause.

Gun manufacturers, like tobacco companies, can be held liable for violation of the law, such as deceptive marketing practices.

If tobacco companies were being held liable for money damages for all the tobacco-related deaths, all the tobacco companies would have gone bankrupt long ago. You're entitled to think that that would be a good outcome. My point is that it didn't happen. The reason it didn't happen is that tobacco companies, like auto manufacturers, are not liable for every death or injury that occurs because of their products.

Multiple posts here denounce this phantom menace of treating gun manufacturers differently from other industries. In fact, if liability were imposed for every gun death, as some here seem to want, then that would be the outcome that entailed treating gun manufacturers differently.

[NCTraveler]

89. Then the snowflakes don't need special protections.

I wonder if auto makers would get special protections if they specifically designed a car to kill. That is what is missing from your absurd argument in that area.

These guns are being used as they are intended. Killing.

[EX500rider]

90. Really? And how many of the 300 million+ guns is that true?

Less then a 1%?
Lets see, over 300,000,000 guns, about 9,000 firearm homicides per year...
That is .003% of guns used for murder.

What's the percentage of cars that kill someone?

[TomCADem]

30. Then Repeal The Immunity If They Don't Need It

You yourself used the car maker example. Car manufacturers do not have a broad statute immunizing them.

[EX500rider]

33. But they do need it because they were getting junk lawsuits in a attempt to bankrupt them.

If you want guns outlawed you will have to work on that.

[TomCADem]

38. CS Monitor - US gun industry is thriving. Seven key figures.

The gun industry does not need protection. They are making money hand over fist. They are hardly facing bankruptcy.

https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2012/1217/US-gun-industry-is-thriving.-Seven-key-figures/31.8-billion

The estimated economic impact of the US firearms industry in 2012, according to data from the National Shooting Sports Foundation. That’s up from $27.8 billion in 2009, due to job creation and new sales taxes. 26,325 new gun-related jobs have been created over the past two years, according to the NSSF.

And while tracking concrete sales numbers of firearms in the United States is tricky, federal officials report that they were higher than ever in 2012. Through the end of November, the FBI recorded 16.5 million background checks for gun purchases in 2012 – the highest figure since the FBI began tracking such data in 1998. And the actual number of guns sold is likely higher, because registrants can buy multiple guns.

Two factors in recent history have had a tendency to send sales soaring. As staff writer Linda Feldmann reported in July, gun sales usually spike in the days following a mass shooting. Background checks rose 41 percent in Colorado in the aftermath of the Aurora movie theater shooting over the summer, and sales spikes followed Columbine and the 2011 rampage in Tucson, Ariz., as well.

The second factor is politics. Sales spiked in anticipation of both of President Obama’s elections, in 2008 and 2012, and stock in firearms manufacturers like Smith & Wesson soared, as buyers feared legislation that would clamp down on Second Amendment rights or restrict their ability to purchase a gun.

[EX500rider]

40. Yes, because they have protection from junk lawsuits.

maybe you should look into the reasons the law came about.

[Demsrule86]

44. I know why...and I disagree with the law.

[TomCADem]

45. Maybe You Should Care About The Folks Who Died...

...in Las Vegas and Florida, rather than the profits of gun makers.

[EX500rider]

86. Car manufactures weren't under a attempt to junk sue them bankrupt

[mythology]

81. Except the ability to use a gun for violence is at least partially within their control

They could make guns with biometric locks so a stolen weapon would be harder to use. Likewise they could make it so a gun marks each bullet when fired to help identify whose gun it is. They could make it so guns can only fire every x number of seconds like phone manufacturers do with password attempts. They could only sell smaller magazines or guns that fire one or two bullets before reloading. There are a number of things gun manufacturers could do to increase safety, but it would cost a bit of money and would turn off their target audience who wants to feel "manly" or "powerful".

They make a choice to sell a product that is easy to use to commit violence because it's not only cheaper for them, but it also helps sell more guns. The gun manufacturers give millions to the NRA who explicitly stokes fears that in turn drive gun sales. That fear is expressly targeted at a group that has repeatedly demonstrated itself to not be mentally stable enough to own guns. But it's good for business.

[EX500rider]

87. You want any"safety"features they will have to be made into laws/regs, just like the auto industry.

They don't put airbags into cars because they want to.

That fear is expressly targeted at a group that has repeatedly demonstrated itself to not be mentally stable enough to own guns.
And what percentage of the 80 million guns owners would that be?

[TomCADem]

101. What about promoting modifications to...

...circumvent restrictions against automatic weapons. Manufacturers often sue after market manufacturers that modify their products in unintended ways. Couldn’t the maker of the AR-15 seek an injunction against bump stock makers?

[EX500rider]

102. They could but probably a job for the BATF...they just need to make them illegal.

[pnwmom]

17. The Brady Campaign says you're wrong.

For example:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/the-protection-of-lawful-commerce-in-arms-act-plcaa

Because of PLCAA, gun manufacturers and sellers can escape accountability to victims even if their business practices are unreasonably dangerous and cause harm. Victims can bring such lawsuits when they are injured by any other product.

For example, a gun dealer escaped accountability when he enabled a drug-abusing, mentally unstable individual to simply take a gun without a Brady background check (he used it two days later to murder an innocent young man). Although he was so grossly negligent that hundreds of guns left his store without background checks, and he had his license revoked for willful violations of gun laws, the dealer was allowed to use his own negligence as a defense to a lawsuit – arguing that PLCAA prohibited ordinary negligence claims.

It also protected an online ammunition retailer from liability who sold thousands of rounds of ammunition to a deranged individual without verifying his identity—the same individual used that ammunition to kill twelve people in a movie theatre, including Jessica Ghawi, the daughter of Lonnie and Sandy Phillips.

The law has prevented victims from holding manufactures accountable for not including feasible safety improvements.

[TCJ70]

28. The Brady Campaign...

...has a noticeable lack of links on that site.

[Wwcd]

73. K & R Thank you for posting

"The law has prevented victims from holding manufactures accountable for not including feasible safety improvements. "

Anyone who voted to protect gun manufacturers should be shamed out of office.

Its bs the way they talk outta both sides of their mouths as though they give 2 shits about the dead kids.

They either protect America's children or they protect the gun industry. The NRA terrorist organization.

Enough with the bull shit they never are held to answer for.

They are liars

[lapucelle]

13. We know where Democrats stand.

Ending tort immunity for gun manufacturers is in our 2016 Platform.

Preventing Gun Violence
With 33,000 Americans dying every year, Democrats believe that we must finally take sensible action to address gun violence. While responsible gun ownership is part of the fabric of many communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. We can respect the rights of responsible gun owners while keeping our communities safe. To build on the success of the lifesaving Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, we will expand and strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws; repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to revoke the dangerous legal immunity protections gun makers and sellers now enjoy; and keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM's)—off our streets.

Here's how the Senate voted in on the bill to give gun manufacturers immunity.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/109-2005/s219/diagram
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/109-2005/s219

Here's how the House voted.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/109-2005/h534/diagram
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/109-2005/h534

[aikoaiko]

25. I'm ok with PLCAA.

If one doesn't want guns around or guns in certain configurations, pass a law.

Anti-gun folks don't like PLCAA because they can't bankrupt gun stores and companies with emotion-based lawsuits.

[Demsrule86]

32. I want every gun store bankrupted...never was a gun grabber but iI have changed my mind...sick of

kids dying and the GOP making more stupid laws enabling these killings of our kids. Registration from manufacture to destruction , background checks which include closing gun show loopholes and if you inherit gun or a parent gives you one...you have to register it as the new owner...and liability insurance.

[Motownman78]

46. A kid is more likely to die

on his way to school then in school from a mass shooting. If we make laws banning every single thing that can take a human life, we will all be living in bubbles.

[Baconator]

114. ... and that's why the law was put in place.

People with too much time and money were trying to bankrupt an industry that wasn't breaking any laws.

[TomCADem]

35. Why Should Gun Manufacturers Be Treated Differently?

That is what does not make sense. No real explanation is given, except, "I am cool with the PLCAA."

[aikoaiko]

39. Because anti-gun groups were using lawsuits to attempt to bankrupt

small stores and small gun makers -- not seek gun safety.

[TomCADem]

50. Should Opioid Makers Also Receive a Broad Immunity to Lawsuits?

I am sure they will argue, hey, our products are designed to make people feel good. That is what we advertise. Now, if they abuse it, that is their own fault. Heck, perhaps opioid makers can even run ad campaigns about the need to stockpile pills just in case the government decides to restrict their use.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/NYC-Opioids-Heroin-Epidemic-Big-Pharma-Suit-470722263.html

New York City filed a $500 million lawsuit Tuesday against prescription opioid manufacturers and distributors, seeking to hold them accountable for their alleged part in the city's drug epidemic.

The lawsuit aims to recover expenses the city will incur in combating the crisis. In 2016, more than 1,000 people in New York City died of an opioid overdose, according to official data — the highest number on record.

“More New Yorkers have died from opioid overdoses than car crashes and homicides combined in recent years. 'Big Pharma' helped to fuel this epidemic by deceptively peddling these dangerous drugs and hooking millions of Americans in exchange for profit,” Mayor Bill de Blasio said in a statement.

The lawsuit alleges the opioid epidemic was caused by manufacturers’ marketing and by distributors sending prescription painkillers into New York City. That in turn placed a burden on the city for increased substance use treatment services, ambulatory services, emergency department services, inpatient hospital services, medical examiner costs, criminal justice costs and law enforcement costs.

[aikoaiko]

53. Yes, if the goal of anti-medicine groups lawsuits was to bankrupt the Rx company

I generally appreciate that we have pharmaceutical companies and suing them into oblivion would not serve us well.

[Jim Lane]

99. No industry is immune from liability for deceptive practices

Note this key passage from the excerpt in your post:

“More New Yorkers have died from opioid overdoses than car crashes and homicides combined in recent years. 'Big Pharma' helped to fuel this epidemic by deceptively peddling these dangerous drugs and hooking millions of Americans in exchange for profit,” Mayor Bill de Blasio said in a statement. [emphasis added]

If an industry (guns, opioids, tobacco, or anything else) markets its product deceptively, then it can be held liable.

What's called for in multiple posts in this thread is that gun manufacturers be held liable for misuse of their products even without any fault on their part -- without any fault, that is, other than the "fault" of manufacturing a legal product that some people shouldn't be a legal product.

[R B Garr]

105. +1, even Sudafed. It is Federally regulated. Drug dealers

were buying it up over the counter to make crystal meth, and now your name goes into a Federal database when you buy it.

[dlk]

34. This Immunity is Nothing Short of an Outrage--Every Pol Who Voted For It Needs to Be Voted Out

This was the worst piece of cynical protections for the manufacturers of deadly products. It puts money in politicians pockets ahead of American lives. Any and every single politician who voted for it needs to be voted out of office. They don't deserve to represent us.

[samir.g]

37. End immunity and then sue the entire industry into oblivion

Every link in the chain from machinist to triggerman is culpable.

[EX500rider]

41. Which is exactly why the law came into being.

A backdoor attempt to get rid of a Constitutionally protected right, not surprising, the Supreme Court would and should take a dim view on such activities.

[TomCADem]

49. ABC: Alabama files lawsuit against opioid manufacturer

I am sure Congress will also soon pass a law immunizing Opioid manufacturers as well, because god forbid they suffer a cut in their profits even after they have denied reports of rampant abuse and have pushed the wide spread use of their products.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/alabama-files-lawsuit-opioid-manufacturer-52879596

Alabama filed a lawsuit on Tuesday against the manufacturer of OxyContin and other opioids, becoming the latest state seeking to hold drug companies accountable for an addiction epidemic.

Alabama Attorney General Alabama Steve Marshall filed the lawsuit in Montgomery federal court against Purdue Pharma, L.P. and its branches. The lawsuit claims the manufacturer engaged in deceptive marketing practices that misled patients and doctors about the benefits of the drugs and the risks of addiction to the powerful painkillers.

"Folks are dying every day as a result of overdoses," Marshall told The Associated Press. "It's not just a law enforcement problem. It's a public health problem."

The Connecticut-based company denied the allegations in a statement, saying it also was troubled by the epidemic and was seeking through specific steps to be "part of the solution."

[EX500rider]

55. I don't think opioids are a Constitutional right.

Supreme Court has a dim view on backdoor attempts to curtail Rights, no poll tax, no ink tax etc.

[TomCADem]

57. If They Are Constitutionally Protected, Then Why Have Congressional Immunity?

Again, if you are going to now argue that the Supreme Court protects gun manufacturers from product liability suits, then why do you need Congress to immunize gun manufacturers?

[EX500rider]

58. The junk lawsuits weren't at the Supreme Court level.

[TomCADem]

60. Then if gun manufacturers lose, then they can appeal...

...all the way to the Supreme Court. Or, are they so poor, that they could not afford an attorney to take it to the Supreme Court? You would think that the NRA would throw them a bone.

[EX500rider]

69. Well now they don't have to since PLCCA was passed.

If people want guns outlawed they are going to have to do it thru the front door and not thru junk lawsuits.

[TomCADem]

70. So, It Was Passed To Save Them $ On Appeal?

Again, just goes to show that the gun industry has Congress in its back pocket and that progressives need to fight for the repeal of the PLCCA.

[Jim Lane]

100. The gravamen of the Alabama opioid suit is "deceptive marketing practices"

That's a verbatim quotation from your excerpt, in which the lawsuit is characterized. (I haven't read the underlying papers.)

See my post #99 upthread. I haven't read everything in this thread yet, but so far I haven't seen any allegation of deceptive marketing practices by gun manufacturers.

[samir.g]

51. Let it go to SCOTUS then

[EX500rider]

52. There is little doubt how they would rule.

[USALiberal]

61. Unless defective, I am not for suing gun companies. Just like I am not for.....

suing Coors for drunk drivers. Or suing a liquor store for drunk drivers.

[X_Digger]

62. I stand with the PLCAA. Sorry. (As well as the aircraft manufacturers and vaccine makers.)

Those three have been the subject of many frivolous lawsuits by crank groups who can't get the legislation they want passed, and subsequently try to subvert the rule of law and bankrupt industries they don't like.

Fuck that. If you don't have the balls to pass the legislation you want, then you don't get to back door a business out of existence.

Cowards.

[TomCADem]

63. Las Vegas shooting victims file lawsuit against bump stock makers - Cowards?

Up is down when you start calling the victims of mass shootings cowards. Up is down. You sure you are on the right board?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lasvegas-shooting-lawsuit/las-vegas-shooting-victims-file-lawsuit-against-bump-stock-makers-idUSKBN1CF2IC

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A lawsuit seeking to represent the victims of the Las Vegas rampage, the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history, was filed against the makers of so-called bump stocks, which the shooter used to achieve a near-automatic rate of fire.

The proposed class action lawsuit, filed in state court in Clark County, Nevada, over the weekend and announced on Tuesday, accuses Slide Fire Solutions and other unnamed manufacturers of negligence leading to the infliction of emotional distress on thousands of people who witnessed or were injured in the Oct. 1 shooting at a Las Vegas music festival.

The lawsuit by three Nevada residents who attended the festival does not involve the injuries that hundreds of people suffered as a result of the shooting, or the families of the 58 people who were killed.

Moran, Texas-based Slide Fire did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

[X_Digger]

65. You mean the lawsuits started by the brady bunch? Or Bloomberg?

The ones where they leave the plaintiffs out to dry when they fail?

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/26669-brady-campaign-hangs-anti-gun-couple-out-to-dry-when-they-lose-lawsuit

Three years after Jessica Ghawi was gunned down by mental case James Holmes in an Aurora, Colorado, theater, her parents, at the urging of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (aka the Brady Center), filed suit against the dealer, Lucky Gunner, who sold Holmes his ammunition. In August 2015, the judge threw out their case and required them to pay the gun dealer’s legal fees:

It is apparent that this case was filed to pursue the political purposes of the Brady Center and, given the failure to present any cognizable legal claim, bringing these defendants [Lucky Gunner] into the Colorado court ... appears to be more of an opportunity to propagandize the public and stigmatize the defendants than to obtain a court order.

On edit: Oh look, from your link:

The lawsuit was filed with support from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a U.S. nonprofit organization that advocates gun control.

Let me guess, they set it up, allowed three concert goes who weren't injured to file it, and when it fails, Brady will disavow any monetary responsibility. They can't even put their own money where their mouth is.

[gopiscrap]

74. Absolutely

[Pope George Ringo II]

77. Just out of curiosity, what if somebody uses a Rock Island Arsenal gun in a crime?

Or one from Springfield Armory? Does the government enjoy protection denied other manufacturers? If so, why?

[Vinca]

79. Gun companies should be held liable for defective products like every other manufacturer.

Holding them liable for crimes committed with their products is another matter. The purpose of guns is killing not gardening. If you poisoned Grandma with rat killer you couldn't sue the rat killer chemical company. The problem is the gun culture. Somehow we've gotten to the point that it's normal for the next door neighbor to hoard an arsenal. It's not normal. I want to go back to the days when the only time you saw a gun was in November when Gramps got his rifle out of the closet to go deer hunting.

[Calista241]

82. None of those lawsuits, pre PLCAA, were ever successful.

They just forced the gun industry to pay lawyer fees and court costs to defend themselves.

[ananda]

96. I know where this loud and proud LIBERAL stands!

nt

[AtheistCrusader]

98. I think there's room to prosecute for certain irresponsible marketing, and irresponsible sales.

Much like Cigarettes.

But the overall immunity should, in my opinion stand. If the product is legal for use, works as intended (not dangerously malfunctioning) etc, the manufacturer of any product should not be held liable for criminal mis-use of the product.

It's universally applicable principle that works on any product for any issue.

[Meowmee]

106. Ive thought for years

Gun and ammo manufacturers and sellers should be held libel as well as any congress members who refuse to pass sensible control laws. When that happens you’ll start to see change. I don’t think it will happen unfortunately. If the murder of young children at Sandy Hook was not enough nothing will be ever. There are too many crazy people here who don’t care and who believe anyone should have unfettered access to whatever guns/ weapons they want.

[LexVegas]

113. I agree. nt