What about MASSIVE class action suits against the NRA, it's CEO, and all of it's Board of Directors?

[99th_Monkey]

After all, as I understand it, many of it's board members also work in the munitions industry, speaking of which, actually these munitions industries should be targeted with lawsuits as well.

I'm no legal expert, so don't know if this makes any sense from a technical legal standpoint, but it certainly makes LOTS of sense to me at a personal, moral, ethical, emotional level. Of course it is only ONE of the many things we can and I think should do to stop this murderous madness that's running amuck. HUGE lawsuits seem only fair and just on the face of it, given that this rash of shootings is becoming a national nightmare, more dire than any threat from foreign terrorists. We are suffering from a mass psychosis, and are literally committing suicide collectively; as these horrific mass shootings are beginning to occur as an almost daily occurance, and are getting increasingly macabre, "unthinkable" and horrific. Over the past month or so, it seems that these shootings are happening with increasing frequency, with no signs of slowing.

When will the NRA and munition$ titan$ be happy? Will they be happy when the$e human $acrifice$ in the public $quare occur every day? Maybe the NRA $hould buy a huge public $tadium, where thi$ gha$tly ma$$ death ritual can be at lea$t organized a bit, so you know, the NRA could charge admi$$ion at the door, and $ell TV right$ to cable network$.
<-- i.e. please do not regard above comment as a serious idea. I don't want to be giving the NRA any "ideas".

But to be deadly serious for a moment, I can't help wondering just how many other 'bad guys' are out there? ... sitting like a ticking time bomb, with their piles of guns and ammo waiting to be "set off" by another NRA talking point, or by Rush Limbaugh, or by (fill in the blank)? I don't even like thinking about the truth of this, but how can we NOT think about it, so as to sort it out personally and collectively?

This has GOT TO STOP.

Would such class lawsuits make any legal sense, if brought forth by say the National Lawyers Guild representing the families and loved ones of those killed in mass shootings or random gun violence?

[Sherman A1]

1. Basis for the suit?

I am pretty sure you need a reason that will hold up in court. I don't like guns at all, but I just don't see this going anywhere.

[marybourg]

2. Looks like the OP is thinking

vicarious liability.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. Not viable or it would have been done well before this

[99th_Monkey]

11. What is "viable" and what is not viable may be sea changing as we speak

what with these mass shootings going off literally nearly every other day, over
past few weeks. These are NOT "normal" circumstances, as we are experiencing
a mass psychosis, whereby we are committing collective suicide, and IMHO all
bets are off in terms of what it will take to stop this madness, since so many of
these assault rifles are now tucked away in stockpile by unstable "bad people
with guns" (as the NRA calls them.)

If there is a category of "vicarious liability" that fits this very abnormal situation,
perhaps for the first time, it should definitely be used to the fullest extent of
the law. Would you not agree?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. " These are NOT "normal" circumstances, as we are experiencing a mass psychosis"

Since that clearly indicates that you do not think firearms are the problem. why not attack the root causes?

[99th_Monkey]

13. Yes, those were my words, but your couldn't be wronger about what they "indicate"

I support good gun laws, tighter restrictions on both semi and full automatics, banning both clips holding more than 4 rounds, and banning these gun show charades, or require that they play by the same rules as other people in the gun sales business, i.e. same licensing and background checking that regular dealers have to comply with.

Actually I would also like to address root causes as well, such as driving the NRA out of business (rather like the Right did to ACORN) and ending public policy deference in DC and state legislatures towards the so-called "gun culture" lobbyists.

[Squinch]

29. Oh, please.

Are you going to talk about spoons now, too?

[99Forever]

16. So now you are a legal expert too?

Impressive!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. No, pragmatic

If it were a viable course of action the Brady Bunch would have already tried it.

[99Forever]

19. Really?

Well shit , I guess that wraps it up then. You have spoken. It's over, no use in trying.


YAY!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. Let history be your guide...

After Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 1995, the Brady Bunch, NYC, and others were banned from filing more nuisance suits.

Given the litigious nature of those plaintiffs, if they thought this other approach would work, would be have not seen it used by now?

Interesting Huffpo article you might find of interest on this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/newtown-victims-lawsuits-nra-_n_2325721.html


Its not me speaking, it is the actions of others which are saying volumes.

[99Forever]

28. I already heard you.

You are the final authority. No one else could possibly have a valid disagreement with your wisdom.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

38. My position is no different than other posters

If 10 posters say you are drunk, you might want to lay off the eggnog

[Whovian]

39. So if ten posters say you are a dick...

[Sherman A1]

51. I believe

that was uncalled for and rather rude.

[brentspeak]

30. A little recent history concerning "ProgressiveProfessor"

The "Professor" claims that "Until we know a little more, (it is premature to say) that the son (mass killer Adam Lanza) was deranged".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1986388

Ok, carry on.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

37. Oh please...

The media was in total failure...It was far from clear if he was deranged or just evil. The post was in response to those dog piling before we knew squat. If suggesting that we wait for some facts in the midst of a media meltdown is bad...call me guilty.

[99th_Monkey]

5. Civil suit for damages, pain and suffering by families of victims

Whereas the NRA and it's affiliate munitions manufacturers have openly conspired for profit to proliferate instruments-of-mass-murder to such an extent that it has put the public at constant risk of being randomly fired upon by people the NRA refers to as "bad people with guns".

And whereas the NRA's public statements are obvious attempts to obfuscate the truth to deflect blame and to continue said proliferation of deadly firearms as stated above.

Therefore, it has become necessary to hold those people and organizations accountable legally and financially, to insure they take full responsible for their actions, their public statements, and the public policies they advocate for the sole purpose of increasing the profits of certain private corporations.

Something to this effect. Like I said, I'm no legal scholar. If you know about such matters, why not hazard your own suggestion as to what the "basis" might be?

[Sherman A1]

14. Well,

"If you know about such matters, why not hazard your own suggestion as to what the "basis" might be?" I do not believe there to be a basis, therefore I do not hazard a suggestion as to what it would be. Certainly the climate can change and in fact the 2 Amendment can be interpreted differently or another amendment can be added to the Constitution to address the current situation. That said, and as much as I find the statements of the NRA & it's intransigence repugnant, I don't see the basis for suing an advocacy organization for shootings, the manufacturers or distribution chain perhaps, but I believe that has already been tried and failed (could be wrong on that).

If you do fine, but I don't see it going forward in a court of law and I think we need to be very careful for what we wish as one must consider the long term ramifications of such actions on other parts of the Bill of Rights.

These shootings are simply beyond tragic, but there is not just one answer to stopping them.

[BlueStreak]

34. I doubt that the NRA could be included

because they are not the manufacturer or retailer. They are just a bunch of deranged people sitting on the sidelines yelling ""Shoot" , "You don't have enough guns", and "you need bigger guns".

But we have already seen Cerberus make the decision to divest its "Freedom Group" after the newtown masssacre.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/cerberus-to-sell-gunmaker-freedom-group/

Perhaps this is just for PR purposes. But it could very well be that their lawyers went to them and said "Look, we are seeing a tectonic shift here. it will not be long before we are held legally liable for what people do with our products. The tobacco companies were able to fight that for 40 years. I don't think we will be able to held them off for so long. Our legal opinion is that keeping this unit could cost Cerberus billions of dollars within 10 years."

This is a very significant move because Cerberus had gobbled up a bunch of arms makers, namely:
Advanced Armament Corporation
Barnes Bullets
Bushmaster Firearms International
Dakota Arms
DPMS Panther Arms
H & R Firearms
Marlin
Mountain Khakis
Para USA[5]
Parker Gunmakers
Remington Arms
Remington Military
Remington LE
Remington PMPD
TAPCO

[99th_Monkey]

47. I agree with much of what you say

This law explains a lot, post #24 on the string.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/12/congress_should_repeal_the_law_that_protects_the_gun_industry_from_lawsuits.html

It would seem that if such lawsuits had absolutely no merit whatsoever, the gun lobby wouldn't have bothered getting this despicable law passed.

[Sherman A1]

52. And there you go....

I would love to see the gun industry sued into the dirt for what they have assisted in doing, but I just don't think it is going to happen and I don't think the NRA in and of itself beyond being a mouthpiece for said industry is legally liable, morally and ethically perhaps for their intransigence to reasonable restrictions on high capacity magazines and assault style weapons, but not legally.

[99th_Monkey]

53. I guess that is precisely WHY the munitions titans have legions of attorneys

is to protect their guilty-as-sin asses from EVER having any accountability whatsoever for their reprehensible murderous actions and words.

[Turbineguy]

3. What will work

is people not going to malls and theaters because they are afraid of getting shot and saying so. This was the war on terror thing all along.

[99th_Monkey]

6. I don't quite get what you mean

People "not going to malls and theaters "works" for whom exactly?

You mean works for the terrorists? for mass psycho killers? for the NRA?

[Turbineguy]

15. People who are frightened to go to public places

would affect the economy of those places.

[99th_Monkey]

43. And you are saying that works for whom again?

I'm not trying to be annoying, I guess it comes naturally sometimes.

You started out saying "that will work" ... I'm guessing you mean
it "works" for the "terrorists", whose goal it was/is to make public spaces
so dangerous it would hurt the economy. Am I getting warm?

[Turbineguy]

50. I am making the connection

that the NRA is harmful to the larger economy, not just the carnage that affects individuals. Lawsuits take years. The "man on the street" who says he's not doing to the mall because he fears getting shot is much faster.

[99th_Monkey]

54. What you say i sadly so true .. no contest on that one. nt

[Bake]

4. Go read FRCP 23 and tell me what class you think you can get certified.

Do that after you find a viable cause of action.

Bake

[99th_Monkey]

8. Please see

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2067474

I don't have the faintest idea WTF "FRCP 23" is. Is that in the neighborhood of Area 51?

I couldn't find it in the urban dictionary, nor was it on my google map anywhere.

Do you have a linksy-poo to this font of authoritative wisdom?

[Bake]

9. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule 23 governs class actions. Sets out what conditions must be met for a class to be certified in federal court.

You can find it online easily enough.

Bake

[99th_Monkey]

10. Thanks for at least spelling it out,

yes, my google is very functional and often used, when adequate
text is provided.

Who needs those stinkin' links anyway!!

[Squinch]

31. In other words, our gun friends won't take you seriously or converse with you until you can

recognize legal shorthand for things that are not in the normal person's parlance, or until you become as conversant in their hobby's terminology as they are. Until then, they will feel that they can point at you and laugh at your ignorance, and thereby absolve themselves of the responsibility of doing anything about the fact that their hobby, in its current form, is contributing to the destruction of lives.

It's easier for them to try and make themselves feel superior over, basically, nothing.

[BlueStreak]

35. I would note that it doesn't have to be a class action to cause the gun makers serious problems

[rucky]

18. Go after the gun/clip/ammo manufacturers, distributors & retailers

It's an easier case to win, and the NRA would lose big in donations from the gunmakers:

In its early days, the National Rifle Association was a grassroots social club that prided itself on independence from corporate influence.
While that is still part of the organization's core function, today less than half of the NRA's revenues come from program fees and membership dues.
The bulk of the group's money now comes in the form of contributions, grants, royalty income, and advertising, much of it originating from gun industry sources

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-nra-has-sold-out-to-the-gun-industry-to-become-their-top-crisis-pr-firm-2012-12#ixzz2G5EqL9CV

[former9thward]

25. See post #24.

[TheMoreYouKnow]

20. would you also support a class action suit

against anti-2nd amendment groups on behalf of people who live in gun restrictive states or cities and have lost family members to violence without a means to defend themselves? Surely you would support this suit right?

[Iggo]

32. Sure, what the hell. I'll sign your petition.

[rrneck]

21. It's often said that guns are made to kill.

Some people respond that the vast majority of them are not made to kill but to propel a projectile through a piece of paper or whatever. I disagree. Most firearms designs, if not all of them, began as weapons of war. Every gun ever made is certainly made to kill. But that's where the conversation usually stops. There is a very important question that lies below the reality of ballistics. Who are guns made to kill?

Unless you can look on the side of the receiver and read who that gun was made to kill or until they design a gun that will only shoot certain people under certain conditions, you can't prove intent or negligence.

The NRA is a lobbying organization like any other. Their objective is profit like any other. They have two feet in the public advocacy trough just like all the anti gun organizations. And the battle royale that gets played out in the media and on the internet keeps them all in business and sends rivers of money to Washington, which is kind of a problem. Suing them will just make them money and help all the associated single digit percenters become fraction of a single digit percenters.

[TheMoreYouKnow]

22. would you also support a class action suit

against anti-2nd amendment groups on behalf of people who live in gun restrictive states or cities and have lost family members to violence without a means to defend themselves? Surely you would support this suit right?

[Iggo]

33. Sure, what the hell. I'll sign your petition.

Wait a minute...trippy!

[slackmaster]

23. Who would have standing?

[99th_Monkey]

41. Surviving victims and families of those murdered in mass shootings. nt

[former9thward]

24. Munitions makers, distributors and sellers can't be sued.

Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) which does not allow suits against weapons makers and sellers. The PLCAA eliminated most tort claims anyone might bring against the manufacturers and other sellers of guns, and did so for past and well as future conduct.

For an article about this see: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/12/congress_should_repeal_the_law_that_protects_the_gun_industry_from_lawsuits.html

[rucky]

36. craptastic!

[99th_Monkey]

42. Gee, why am I not surprised.

It obviously "pays" to have legions of attorneys and lobbyists working 24/7 to protect
ones criminal, immoral and evil deeds.

Thanks for that link tho, as it does seem quite relevant. ESPECIALLY the part about
repealing this "bad law that shields them from liability".

The horror of Newtown has finally snapped us out of our delusional reverie about guns. Swiftly, a barrage of promising proposals have been thrown on the table: Close the gun-show loophole, which allows guns to be sold to anyone without the simple safeguard of a background check. Ban assault weapons. Ban or control the sale of large ammunition clips. Increase funding for mental health awareness, services, and surveillance.

Like any major public health problem, stemming gun violence will require multiple, overlapping strategies. Let me offer another one, overlooked until now, but potentially a dynamo: Repeal the little-known, but pernicious, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. In other words, reopen the door to lawsuits against gun sellers for wrongful conduct in the design and marketing of their weapons.

[Angleae]

44. The NRA isn't a manufacturer or seller of guns.

They are however, protected under the 1st amendment unless proof can be brought that the NRA directly incited the shooter to commit the crime.

[madokie]

27. Yup this has got to stop

and if it takes lawsuits to do it then let it be.

[jody]

40. Why not concentrate on one goal, preventing another mass-murder.

People who commit traditional violent crime appear to be different than mass murderers.

Proposals that would ban guns under the belief guns create crime ignore the latest government report.

"Gun Control Legislation” by CRS (Nov 14, 2012) reports

- from 1994 to 2007, firearm number increased from 192 million to 294 million.

- from 1994 to 2007, Firearms-Related Murder Rate decreased from 6.6 to 3.9.

Until that report is refuted, laws to prevent mass-murder should focus on the person and not banning the firearm.

[Angleae]

45. It would be thrown out.

Unless one can prove in a court of law that they directly incited the shooter to commit the crime, the are protected under the 1st amendment.

[99th_Monkey]

46. Actually, "they" are protected by an act of Congress

here: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/12/congress_should_repeal_the_law_that_protects_the_gun_industry_from_lawsuits.html

Posted above at post #24

If the 1st Amendment protected them from liability, they wouldn't have bothered to pay legions of attorneys and lobbyists to get this despicable law passed in the first place.

[Angleae]

55. I missed the line about "munitions industries" and was referring to the NRA itself.

The gun manufacturers needed the law, the NRA doesn't.

[99th_Monkey]

56. Personally, I feel it should be illegal to enable mass psycho killers with easy access to guns

and that is -- or appears to be --- The NRAs main activity, in concert with munitions corporations
of course,by sanctioning the "gun show exemption" from background checks, etc. To me what the
NRA is doing is far worse than using the 1st Amendment to justify yelling "FIRE!!!" in a crowded
theater, which I believe is where the 1st Amendment gives way to justice, balance, and fairness
to all living sentient beings. like those 20 little children.

But then, that's just IMHO.

[cecilfirefox]

48. How about we not ask stupid questions we know the answers to already?? -_- nt

[99th_Monkey]

49. Speaking of stupid questions, how about just using your backspace button?

if you don't like this thread, you are welcome to simply fuck off and
to take your hostility elsewhere.

oh, and merry christmas.