It’s time to repeal the gun industry’s exceptional legal immunity

[LuckyTheDog]

Gun violence has been a problem for a long time, but the recent shootings in Paris and San Bernardino have focused new attention on the issue.

Americans no longer just worry about someone shooting up a school or workplace for personal reasons. The threat of terrorism has added an alarming new dimension to the problem.

Coming up with effective and realistic solutions is not easy. Guns pose a tricky dilemma, because they can be used to do good or bad things. They can be used to commit heinous crimes, but they can be used to protect lives as well.

The challenge for lawmakers is to come up with ways to reduce the risk of criminal misuse of guns while preserving and even promoting the likelihood of guns being used in beneficial ways.

MORE HERE: http://yonside.com/its-time-to-repeal-the-gun-industrys-exceptional-legal-immunity/

[pipoman]

1. Since no "exceptional legal immunity" exists, that is an easy one...

[LuckyTheDog]

2. Read the article...

... They have a level of immunity from lawsuits that no other industry enjoys.

[pipoman]

6. They had unprecedented frivolous law suits filed by

Gun control billionaires. The only immunity they have is from civil law suits filed solely as a financial burden.

A gun manufacturer/dealer cannot be sued if they act within the law....simple. If there were a few billionaires suing vehicle makers for DUI deaths, or Alcohol makers for cirrhosis, or cigarette makers for cancer, there are or would be similar protection for the judicial system put into place..

No, this is a complete nonissue dog whistle. Even Bernie knows this and agrees that we cannot let people like Mike Bloomberg make a mockery of our judicial system.

[LuckyTheDog]

10. Gun manufacturers could do more to police gun dealers

They should be sued if their distribution systems turn a blind eye to (or actually encourage) straw purchases. Gun makes are also exempt from having safety standards applied to their products.

[GGJohn]

13. They can be sued for those practices,

what they can't be sued for is the criminal or negligent misuse of their legal product.
It's like trying to sue Ford because a drunk driver, driving a Ford, killed someone.

[Lizzie Poppet]

26. How, specifically?

Honest question. What could gun manufacturers do to police dealers?

For the record: I consider one of the most important gun control steps we could take is far more aggressive prosecution of people who make illegal transfers of firearms. Straw purchasers, negligent (or deliberately criminal) dealers, street traffickers, etc... These sales are the largest source of firearms to prohibited persons (convicted felons, mostly), and those persons account for the rather large majority of gun crimes. People who knowingly make such a transfer are guilty of a felony-level federal crime, but enforcement is badly lacking. We need to make this a priority, and assure funding for more resources to prosecute offenders.

[pipoman]

27. That is not their job

Any more than it is a car makers job to be sure drunks don't buy their product. It is the BATFE's job to regulate and inforce laws...they do a pretty shitty job of it, but that is another issue...

That last bit about safety is completely false...just fyi

[patsimp]

31. true. gun manufacturers only job is to make money through the death of other people

or preparing for the death of other people.

much as the tobacco industry.

[pipoman]

62. You don't have to like it...

[patsimp]

65. remember that when an impartial Supreme Court in the future gets rid of the bogus interpretation

of the 2nd amendment under scalia and Thomas (who are both about to try their best to eliminate affirmative action).

[pipoman]

66. That will happen on the same time frame as Roe being overturned

never...how long have we had a right leaning court?

[branford]

89. The individual rights interpretation of the 2A is not the primary issue facing gun controllers.

In fact, a significant number of gun regulations, including AWB's and UBC's, are almost certainly entirely constitutional.

Your problem is that you lack popular and electoral support to actually implements any of your ideas nationally or in the majority of states. The entire 2A can disappear tomorrow and it would not repeal the PLCAA or implement a single firearm regulation, no less bans and confiscation. At most, and to the extent permitted by the 2A analogs in state constitutions, many of which are far broader and more protective than the 2A, some states or localities might pass tighter regulations. These laws would still also need to abide by other constitutional provisions, including the 4A, 5A, and 14A (e.g., the terror list prohibition idea is still probably unconstitutional).

As explained by others, stare decisis is powerful legal force, and the reasons why the Heller reasoning will continue for at least many, many years with a liberal court, just like Roe has survived generations with a conservative court. In any event, If you want much stricter gun control, you'll need to persuade a critical mass of your fellow Americans, more than one in three who own firearms, not just a few black-robed one-percenters.

Complaining about the Heller and McDonald decisions is like complaining about the NRA. It's a red herring used to rationalize the lack of support for gun control in the USA.

[Duckhunter935]

44. dealers have been sued and lost

Over straw purchasing and it is illegal. Big case in Wisconsin was just in the news on this.

[Lee-Lee]

111. Straw purchases are a Federal crime

If you have any actual knowledge or information about dealers turning a blind eye to them, or even worse a whole network turning a blind eye to them or encouraging them I highly suggest you contact your closest office of the BATFE immediately.

Dealers and manufacturers have no immunity from what you describe, and in fact if they knowingly allow or encourage straw purchases as you claim they at a minimum will have their license to sell or manufacture firearms revoked, and will face jail time of the DOJ does their job.

So, your idea they have immunity from that is wrong, and if you have any evidence at all that what you claim is happening is in fact happening you need to call and report it NOW.

[Duckhunter935]

43. they had to defend against

Frivolous SLAAP suits like no other industry does. They can still be sued and there are six exceptions to that partial immunity. Please research your subject.

[Logical]

16. Sure they do, read more about it. Nt

[pipoman]

28. I have, those who state otherwise simply haven't a clue what they are talking about.

Think liquor makers can't be sued for cirrhosis and maybe it will make sense to you.

[Eleanors38]

50. A mass murder (4 dead) was committed in Austin in 2013....

Honda Motors was not sued or arrested. The drunk SOB was arrested.

What the controller/banner/confiscator wants IS EXCEPTIONAL status for gun manufacturers to be sued.

There is a track record for these nuisance suits. Know what it is?

[Logical]

60. But there are special laws for gun companies only! Nt

[Eleanors38]

61. Gun companies are in the same legal category as Cars and TVs. Correct?

[Logical]

64. Lol, all i said is that they pass a special law for gun companies! How is that....

Confusing to you? I am not even complaining about the law. What the hell are you arguing about?

[Eleanors38]

81. Silly. The only think "special" was the controllers' attempt to make a special law...

To apply to gun manufacturers.



If you line-item a law to regulate one industry in a special way, then you get a law to prevent that. One has to be supremely specious to argue the gun industry is exempt when a "special" category for SLAAP suits was pushed. With repeated failure.

[Logical]

83. You really crack me up at times. nt

[Eleanors38]

88. Glad to be of soivice!

[pipoman]

63. Inly because George Soros and Mike Bloomberg

Aren't making a hobby of suing any other industry out of business.

The tobacco industry is protected from suits.

[branford]

90. There are special laws for firearm manufacturers

because many peopled treated them uniquely for political purposes and abused the legal system. Congress unsurprisingly reacted. Note also that arms, unlike other consumer products, are actually explicitly protected by the Constitution.

Further firearms manufacturers are not the only group that receives "special" legal protections for public policy reasons. Search Google about the legal protections offered to airplane part and vaccine manufacturers. If people began to frivolously sue auto manufacturers and dealers to damages by drunk drivers unconnected with any actual defects in the cars, I would similarly expect Congress to act.

If you want to dramatically change American firearm regulations and "gun culture," no less obviate the 2A, you will not be able to do so through back-door judicial fiat. You'll actually need to persuade tens of million fellow Americans of the wisdom of your proposals, and if necessary, change the Constitution.

[hack89]

3. Gun manufacturers can be sued if they break the law or sell defective products

they cannot be sued for the criminal use of their products by a third party.

There is nothing exceptional about that - it is no different than any other business.

[Orrex]

5. Other products are subject to safety review

But the gun industry is famously shielded against such research since federal funding of such study is banned. This is a privilege of protection enjoyed by no other industry.

[hack89]

8. Really?

So I can sue Coors if a drunk driver hits me? Because there has been plenty of research on the effects of alcohol and we know without any doubt it is a highly addictive substance that imposes a high cost on society.

[Logical]

17. Yes you can, there is a special law in place for gun companies. Nt

[hack89]

18. It is what happens when you overreach

the gun control groups thought they could sue guns out of existence. You know what they say - if you plan to take down the king you better kill him with your first try because you won't get a second chance.

If there was an organized campaign to drive brewers out of existence there would be a special law for them as well.

[patsimp]

32. overreach is what the nra has done with the 2nd amendment

it's only a matter of time and unfortunately many more deaths before that will be fixed.

[hack89]

38. The 2A allows for the strict regulation of guns

Last edited Wed Dec 9, 2015, 03:08 PM - Edit history (1)

AWBs, registration, UBCs - all perfectly constitutional.

Time to stop blaming the 2A for your failures.

[patsimp]

47. my failures? - aren't we being a bit personal? Like me saying that you failed because of the people

killed by guns in LA.

[hack89]

48. Ok. The failure of gun control groups. nt

[GGJohn]

19. Really?

I can sue an alcoholic beverage company if a drunk, drinking their product, hits and injures me?
Do you have a link for that law?

[Orrex]

21. Of course I made no such claim to that end.

You asserted that guns are afforded no special legal immunity, and I correctly noted that they certainly are.

And it's interesting that gun-advocates invariably roll out alcohol as if it's relevant to the epidemic of gun murders. If you want to pretend that comparison is relevant, then please provide the number of murders committed annually in which alcohol is the murder weapon, and also give me the total number of annual suicides in which alcohol is the actual weapon of death. Maybe you could also furnish a tally of terrorist attacks with alcohol as the weapon of choice. Perhaps you could conclude with an overview of all the armies that send their troops into battle armed only with alcohol, given its terrible lethality.

Gun-advocates love to scoop up any alcohol-related death, ranging from cirrhosis to a drunk plane crash to the guy who fell off the curb after exiting the liquor store, and they compare these to the number of firearm deaths. We can certainly have a discussion about the health impacts of alcohol, but that discussion should not distract from the reality that guns are lethal in a way that other products are not.

The guns/alcohol analogy is always faulty, and it's yanked straight out of the RW/NRA propaganda playbook.

[hack89]

29. If people started a concerted campaign to sue brewers out of existence

Last edited Wed Dec 9, 2015, 01:43 PM - Edit history (1)

then there would be a special law for alcohol.

Gun control organizations overreached and this law was the result. They need to give up the notion that you can sue a company for the criminal use of their products by a third party despite the fact that they obeyed all state and federal law regarding the manufacturer, marketing and sales of a legal product. It is as simple as that.

According to the CDC, alcohol is a common factor in suicides:

Alcohol has long been known to play a role in suicides, but there have been little data regarding which victims use it and how often. Now the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that in a large sample of suicide victims whose blood alcohol levels were measured post mortem, one in four had been legally drunk, with a blood alcohol content at or above the federal standard of 0.08, or 8 milligrams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood.

Younger adults and men were more likely than women or older people to have been drunk, the study found. Some 28 percent of adults ages 20 to 49 were intoxicated when they committed suicide, and 25 percent of men were intoxicated, compared to 18 percent of women.

Other experts suggested alcohol may play an even more prominent role in suicide in some regions than the study suggests. Dr. Philip A. May, professor of sociology at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, said alcohol plays a role in about 40 percent of suicides in New Mexico.

“The younger the individual, no matter what ethnic group, the more impulsive the suicide is, and the more impulsive the suicide is, the more likely alcohol is a major factor or trigger,” Dr. May said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/health/19suicide.html?_r=0

Alcohol is implicated in violent crime, rape, domestic violence, premature death, child abuse and deadly accidents. Your attempts to hand wave it away are interesting. I can tell you one thing - where I live, alcohol kills many more people than guns do. I suspect the same is true where you live.

[Orrex]

37. I know that you want the conversation to be about alcohol, but it's not

Your contention appears to be that we can downplay the epidemic of gun murders simply because you can identify another factor contributing to deaths. Please clarify if that's not in fact your position, because that's how it's coming across.

You also seem to want to portray me as dismissive of alcohol-related deaths:

Alcohol is implicated in violent crime, rape, domestic violence, premature death, child abuse and deadly accidents. Your attempts to hand wave it away are interesting.

But that's a misrepresentation, and I'm under no obligation to defend a straw man. I don't dismiss those deaths; I rightly note that they are not an analogy for the gun-inflicted deaths that you seem not to want to discuss.

I can tell you one thing - where I live, alcohol kills many more people than guns do. I suspect the same is true where you live.

More accurately, alcohol is a contributing factor in more deaths than guns, whereas guns are the proximate cause of death in far more cases than alcohol.

I would be happy to discuss the problems resulting from alcohol consumption, but I'm not interested in preempting the discussion of gun-deaths to do so.


Incidentally, it's curious that you still haven't addressed the fact that the gun industry is afforded legal privileges that other industries are not, because that's what the OP is about.

[hack89]

39. The first part of my post explained why the law came about

just like the 94 AWB, it was another self inflicted wound on the part of gun control organizations.

[Orrex]

40. Another weak attempt at metaphor by a gun apologist

As long as guns are not alcohol, your effort to equate them--or the laws governing them--are meaningless.

[hack89]

41. The alcohol part was in direct response to your question about alcohol and suicide. nt

[Orrex]

54. Which, in turn, was a direct response to your claim about alcohol safety

[hack89]

58. Do you want me to answer direct questions from you or not?

you can't ask me to provide links about alcohol and suicide and then criticize me for doing exactly that.

[Duckhunter935]

45. so are firearms manufacturers

They have had several recalls due to lawsuits.

[Orrex]

55. Show me the largescale study about gun safety and the factors contributing to gun violence

You know, the study that's been blocked by the NRA's servants in congress?

That's the legal protection that the gun industry enjoys and which other industries do not.

[Eleanors38]

57. "Safety review." It's called proofing. Been done for many decades...

If a gun has a failure when used as directed, the manufacturer is as liable as anyone else. See: Remington 700 recall, Winchester ammo recalls, etc.

I think what some people want is a system of government bureaus which will set convoluted "Safety®" standards and performance characteristic so that they can delay, obfuscate, and load up a huge ban/confiscation effort based on an ever-expanding definition of technical safety standards.

Frankly, firearms are more reliable and safer than ever before. The courts know this. And they know subterfuge. Please review the several court cases where arms manufacturers were sued by prohibitionists for Other than safety of the arm. It's a one-sided result. That's why the rejected legislation was proposed:

It was designed to put firearms manufacturers IN a UNIQUE STATUS, not to exempt them from normal product liability.

[krispos42]

59. Gun makers are sued for defective products regularly

This year alone there was a problem with Remington bolt-action rifles and Taurus handguns. There were defective designs or manufacturing that endangered people, and the issue was brought to court. Taurus settled out-of-court; they have to repair or replace a large quantity of pistols. Not sure offhand what happened with Remington.

[Hoyt]

4. Why shouldn't company that advertises like this be open to suit when one of its customers murders

a bunch of little children. And who the heck needs a gun marketed as a Tactical Weapon in this country besides the well regulated militia?





"Tactical" Ad

[Orrex]

7. You've got it all wrong

A "well-regulated militia" is anyone who wants a gun, especially if they think they need one.

Except maybe felons, but they can get them pretty easily too.

[GGJohn]

14. Are any of those ads advocating for the criminal misuse of those products Hoyt?

Are those ads illegal?

[patsimp]

34. would the nra ever let them be illegal

remember the nra has members of congress scared out of their minds. the nra boasts about their political power.

[Hoyt]

53. The marketeers sure know what gets you excited.

[branford]

91. Sex and violence sells everything from automobiles to hygiene products.

That's hardly a revelation.

You just don't like guns, and are willing to engage in ridiculous and bigoted stereotypes of anyone who owns them or supports others right to do so. Of course, you are free to hold such beliefs, but most Americans will, and do, treat them as the risably fringe.

[Hoyt]

93. Yep, I'm a bigot when it comes to people who walk around with guns like George Zman.

Interesting that you admit violence and sex sell guns. Maybe gunners should watch porn rather than turning to guns to satisfy their base desires. Heck, it's free and not as cold as fondling guns.

[branford]

105. Sigh...

Violence and sex sells everything. Welcome to the human race.

"Gunners," along with everyone else, can see, say and watch most anything they so choose, particularly as it may concern constitutional rights.

Nevertheless, your sexual ideation concerning firearms and their owners is most unusual and quite disturbing, but provides a window into your thinking, not other people who support firearm rights. Similarly, I don't believe I've ever even seen you post in a thread without mentioning George Zimmerman. You should know that most adults manage to live their lives without obsessing over over insignificant individuals we don't even personally know, no less find reasons to attribute all things we perceive as bad at their feet. Do you ever wonder why your strategies and tactics haven't actually led to more gun control?

[Hoyt]

106. A typical gunner who straps one on to go to the store. A racist too,

which should be no surprise. G Zman is the poster child for today's "mainstream" gun fancier.

[branford]

107. No.

Your belief of what a mythical "typical gunner" is does not make it so. You really need to acquaint yourself with the concept of confirmation bias.

There are approximately 100 millions legal firearms owners in the USA, they come from all backgrounds, regions, ethnicities, etc. There is no "typical gunner," and Zimmerman is does not speak anyone but himself. Moreover, assuming solely for the purposes of argument, every single gun owner is an unrepentant racist. It would not change a single thing about gun control in the USA (and would be a disastrous commentary on millions of Democrats and our Platform). Such ideas, no matter how vile, are entirely protected, and people cannot lose constitutional rights because they don't meet your personal ethical standards, real or imagined. Ironically, I would also note that many gun restrictions were originally devised to prevent minorities from owning firearms, and organizations such as one of your personal boogeyman, the NRA, strongly opposes such racist ideas and welcomes new minority firearm owners.

[aikoaiko]

24. Because none of those ads come close to inciting violence

How would you use those ads to sue for negligence beyond depending on the emotionality of gun violence?

[Hoyt]

52. BS. They encourage people to train as snipers, urban warriors, tough guys, arm up, etc.

You gunners are an obtuse bunch. But marketeers know what you want/need to be.

[GGJohn]

67. LOL.

Pure comedy gold.

[Hoyt]

68. GG, they use folks with a lot of guns, like you, as the model for their ads. They know their

market, and what triggers sales.

[GGJohn]

69. Hoyt, if you had paid attention instead of constantly belittling firearm owners,

you would know that the majority of my firearms are of historical value, not for shooting, so your premise about me is a gigantic fail, as are most of your posts concerning firearms issues.

[Lee-Lee]

112. Robbers do more to encourage gun ownership among victims than any ads

I get more people taking may basic gun safety classes and concealed carry classes after they or someone close to them was a victim of a crime than I do for any other reason.

As you have admitted to being a robber on here before, how do you feel knowing your actions and those of your criminal brethren have probably pushed more people into gun ownership than any of those ads you claim to despise.

[Hoyt]

114. I didn't "admit" to being a robber, I was responding to someone who probably took your course

on preparing to shoot people. You gunners were going nuts over a news report of true robbers locking the door of a store they were robbing. You guys were saying, that's when you start blasting away because they are gonna kill us, boohooo. I responded, "well back when I was a robber, I locked the door to control the situation so I didn't have to shoot people." Only you guys are too obtuse to get it.


Do you model your course after Massad Ayoob -- a favorite of the Gungeon -- who specializes in teaching urban warfare, being afraid of minorities, and similar BS? Hopefully, your classes are more diverse, politically, ethnically, and morally, than his.





Doesn't training to shoot people look like fun?

[Lee-Lee]

115. My classes are pretty fun as well as educational

If you don't keep it fun people don't learn as well.

As for the diversity you seem hung up on, as I am both not white and not male it would be pretty counterproductive for me to teach my students to fear me....

Around 70% of my students are female, I find women are less intimidated by a female instructor on this subject and seek them out and all my students come from referrals and word of mouth. I've done classes that were all black, classes for an LGBT group who wanted it, classes for a church group, my last class was a business owner who paid for any of his employees who wanted the class to take it.

My only requirements for the class is the person be legally eligible to possess a firearm ( I do a background screening ), willing to learn, take the class seriously and don't be unsafe.

I'm realistic about what I teach. Not just the laws on when you an and can't use deadly force, but also how and why to avoid using it even when it's a legal option and the reality of how much legal hardship a person can face from even a self defense shooting that's 100% justified. So I teach how to be more aware of ones surroundings and hopefully avoid the situation where you would ever need the gun as much as I do how and when to shoot. NC mandates the course be 8 hours but there is about 3 hours of that left up to the instructors discretion on what's covered, do situational awareness, how to defuse a situation and the legal ramifications all get taught in my classes.

[Hoyt]

124. I know what you teach, the same stuff Zman used to get off. That's what most

gunners teach and learn.

[GGJohn]

117. So IOW, you lied about being a former robber. eom.

[Hoyt]

126. Didn't lie, you are just too obtuse to get it. In fact, I did not think you were even

here then.

[GGJohn]

134. That links been posted several times recently,

and you said as a former robber, now you're saying you aren't a former robber, so which one is true and which one is a lie?

[Hoyt]

136. Glad you hang on my every word. Learn to read without pointing at each word.

[GGJohn]

138. C'mon Hoyt, which statement is not true? eom.

[GGJohn]

118. So just exactly what are you trying to prove with these pictures?

I see a group of people in the upper picture and 5 people showing off their skill in target shooting.
So, what's your point, if there is one.

[Hoyt]

125. Shooting silhouette targets that resemble humans is training to kill, period.

Do you think shooting target like this that were popular a year or so ago, is just "target shooting?"

[TeddyR]

132. I use targets that are just a circle

Is that training to kill?

[Hoyt]

133. If it represents center mass, and you tote. Or one fancies themselves a sniper.

Besides, target shooting can be done with less than lethal weapons.

[branford]

92. Assuming your perception is accurate (and it's not),

are any of those things inherently illegal?

[Hoyt]

94. Greed, hatred, waving confederate flag are not illegal, doesn't mean those things are right/moral.

[branford]

104. People have the absolute right hold bigoted, horrible or otherwise terrible beliefs.

In the USA, we do not lose rights because we hold unpopular or loathsome opinions.

Since the advertisements promote entirely legal conduct, are clearly targeted to adults, and are not even as bad as some ads or other media, particularly involving children, I and most other people could really care less.

Feel free to obsess on your stereotypes of gun owners or basic advertising, but it will not change constitutional law. Your aggressive and often insulting comments about many millions of American gun owners and their supporters, including a great many Democrats, will not only fails to change anyone's beliefs, but will likely harden opinions.

[beevul]

123. "In the USA, we do not lose rights because we hold unpopular or loathsome opinions."

"In the USA, we do not lose rights because we hold unpopular or loathsome opinions."

Exactly. In fact, its unpopular or loathsome" opinions and views which were intended to be protected in the first place.

Popular views opinions and speech don't need protection, by definition.

[DashOneBravo]

103. I disagree

While it may offend you to see someone shooting at man targets.

Those aren't the ones shooting everyone back on the block.

[patsimp]

33. you are right

[DetlefK]

9. It's not the guns. The US has a gun-culture problem.

Switzerland has a guns-per-citizens ratio almost comparable to the US, but way less gun-violence.

Because in Switzerland, your rifle is a tool you use to defend your country. That machine-gun in your closet isn't there for you or your goals or your needs. It's there for your country's needs.

In the US, your gun is your tool. Your private property. You use it to defend yourself. You use it to further your goals, your needs, your interests... for example, by preparing to wage war on anyone who would like to reduce your ability to further your goals, your needs, your interests.

[yeoman6987]

11. Switzerland also does nothing to have a drug or gang problem.

We are a uniques country of 320 million to switzerlands 8 million? That is a huge difference.

[LuckyTheDog]

12. In Switzerland, you can have the gun at home...

... but not the ammo, until the government decides it's time to pass it out.

[1939]

78. I don't know if the policy has changed

The Swiss Army did have their members keeping individual arms in their homes with the basic load of ammunition for it. The ammunition was in a sealed can which was taken to the muster and inspected to make sure the soldier still had it and that the seal was unbroken. I believe the the crew served weapons (machine guns and mortars) and their ammunition was kept at the muster point.

[ileus]

15. No it was put in place for a reason....it stopped the lawsuit lottery.

make something up blame the manufacture and presto instant millions.

[frylock]

20. Who should be sued for the attack in San Bernardino and why?

[LuckyTheDog]

23. I never suggested any specific lawsuits

But I suppose the families could sue the estates of the attackers, assuming there is any money to be had there.

[frylock]

25. I thought this discussion was about PLCAA?

[LuckyTheDog]

71. It is.

But repealing the PLCAA does not mean gun manufacturers become responsible for the actions of shooters. That's just an NRA myth -- kind of like the idea that gun control equals banning all guns.

Gun manufacturers have been sued by people wanting them to modify their OWN behavior. Gun manufacturers could do more to police dealers -- first and foremost by cutting off the supply of weapons to sleazy gun sellers who facilitate straw purchases. The fact that gun makers wash their hands of anything that happens once guns leave the factory helps feed the problem we have.

We need to give gun makers an incentive to give a shit about who is buying and using their products.

[hack89]

73. Why doesn't the ATF do it's job and shut down sleazy dealers?

isn't that why we have laws against straw purchases and law enforcement agencies to enforce them?

What information would gun manufacturers have about straw purchases that law enforcement doesn't have?

[LuckyTheDog]

74. The legal and ethical principle of "know your client" is a long-standing one.

So, sorry, but it really is the job of gun makers to pay attention to who they are selling to and to cooperate with law enforcement.

[hack89]

75. So gun manufacturers have access to data about straw purchases?

what information is available and how do they get it?

Are you saying that gun manufacturers should "shut down" gun dealers even if law enforcement has no evidence of criminal activity?

[LuckyTheDog]

76. I am saying they should know who they are selling to...

... and refuse to do business with shady dealers. There is no law saying that they have to sell guns to sleazeballs. If they have reason to think a gun store is doing bad things, they should not sell to that gun store.

[hack89]

77. So how do they determine who are sleazy dealers?

what is the metric and how do they get the evidence? Because any decision they make has to stand up in court when they are sued. Can we agree that unsubstantiated "concerns" are not sufficient?

[LuckyTheDog]

79. They determine who is sleazy by knowing who they are and what their business practices are

How they do that would be up to them. They could have personnel visit the shops periodically, they could require dealers to go through training, or any number of things.

A gun shop does not have a constitutional right to buy guns from any particular manufacturer. In fact, they don't have a constitutional right to stay in business, either.

So, if, say, Colt told a shop that "we're not doing business with you because you don't meet our standards," then there would be nothing illegal about that. The gun shop could sue because anybody can sue anyone about anything. But the court would not likely side with the plaintiff.

Gun manufacturers could cover themselves by requiring retailers to sign an agreement spelling out specific terms. Disputes could be settled with binding arbitration.

[hack89]

80. So they have to do what the ATF is doing right now?

Why can't the standard be "you have to obey all state and federal laws"? and let the police and ATF enforce it?
Are you expecting gun manufacturers to impose extra-legal requirements on gun stores?

[LuckyTheDog]

84. Extra-legal?

There is nothing at all "extra-legal" about setting standards for those who want to sell your goods at the retail level and enforcing those standards. Businesses do that kind of thing all the time.

I think turning a blind eye and hoping the ATF sorts it all out is a recipe for more of the same in the gun trade. Gun manufacturers can do more -- and they should. Would it cost money? Of course. But that should be the price of doing business when you make a product designed to kill people.

[hack89]

85. So what is wrong with an "obey all local, state and federal laws relating to gun sales" standard?

if the ATF fails to sort it out, isn't the answer to sue the ATF? Why are you absolving the ATF for failing to do their jobs?

I agree that a gun manufacturer should cut ties with any gun dealer convicted of breaking the law. Not sure what higher standards you think need to be enforced.

[LuckyTheDog]

86. If they are breaking the law and the gun manufacturer knows it...

... then the gun manufacturer should cut ties and alert the ATF.

Gun manufacturers (if for no other reason than to protect their brand images) should also know who they are selling to and how those people do business. If red flags come up, they need to have a process for dealing with them.

Guidelines could include things like making sure the guns are properly secured against theft and protocols for checking out and/or cutting off retail buyers who seem to be purchasing guns for the purpose of re-selling them to illegally. Gun shops also could be required to pro-actively work with law-enforcement when they suspect straw purchases.

The idea of industry self-regulation as an overlay to what law-enforcement does isn't exactly radical.

[hack89]

87. No shit - the "red flag" is criminal activity

but it is not their responsibility to go looking for it. The police and ATF do their job and take away the dealer's license. No need for the manufacturer to do anything - without a license the dealer can't buy their guns anyway.

You just want the ability to sue gun manufacturers out of business. It failed the first time and I doubt you will get a second chance.

[LuckyTheDog]

110. Now you are accusing me of having a hidden agenda?

How very paranoid of you.

[hack89]

121. No - it's very open

the very reason this law came about is because gun control groups started a coordinated campaign to sue gun makers out of business. Please don't play dumb with me.

[LuckyTheDog]

129. LOL.

You consider yourself quite he mind reader. Do you also do card tricks?

[hack89]

130. Ok. Nt

[pipoman]

108. Jezuz, I just read this ridiculous combination of words

You've put together in this subthread and come away with one of two conclusions....either you don't get that anyone in the business of selling firearms must have a federal firearms license with a book of rules and regulations attached...these ffl dealers are policed by the batfe (atf), not by their neighbor, the boy scouts, the red hat ladies or their suppliers..or..well, there really isn't another explaination I can think of that doesn't tequire a general slowness of wit...

[LuckyTheDog]

109. Why do gun zealots always go for the personal attacks?

Sheesh.

[sarisataka]

120. *snort*

?v=1414445494

[EX500rider]

122. "They could have personnel visit the shops periodically"

There are a total of 129,817 gun dealers in the country, which include retail stores (51,438), "collectors" (61,562), pawn shops (7,356), and importers and manufacturers.

[Lee-Lee]

113. There are strong laws in place and a whole Federal agency whose job it is to do that

If all these bad dealers exist as you claim:

Why do you give the BATFE a pass for not prosecuting the dealers and straw buyers and instead Blair gun makers who have far less authority?

Why do you give the BATFE a pass on allowing the dealers to keep a license?

How, exactly, do you know a shop is "shady" by going in and looking around? Tell me if you were in charge of this stupid new policy you advocate what standards would you use to judge a shop is "good" or "shady". Be specific. If you can't name it, then yor advocating something you don't even understand. Is it if they have decorations you don't like? Too many "thugs" in the customer base? Dirty windows?

Your looking for any way to blame gun makers and grasping at really weak straws while giving both the BATFE and DOJ a complete free pass for failing to enforce the actual laws you claim are being broken by these shops, and instead wanting to create a really weak arguement to blame gun makers.

Your basic arguement is that if laws are being broken then we need to blame a person who made the gun who may be 1-5 or more steps in the chain removed from the person breaking the law and make them bear responsibility, instead of just demanding the BATFE do their job in enforcement and more importantly demanding that the DOJ force the US Attornies to actually prosecute straw buyers and dealers who knowingly break the law.

Right now less than 1% of people who break the law and commit perjury trying to buy a gun illegally and get stopped by a background check get prosecuted for that crime, and most cases of straw buyers don't get prosecuted. As a deputy I had a taped confession of a straw buyer I took to the Feds and they said it wasn't worth their time to prosecute her. It's a Federal law so I couldn't do it, so she got away with doing a straw purchase for a man who had a domestic violence restraining order against him. That she didn't get prosecuted wasn't the dealers fault, he was mad that he got duped by her and cooperated fully, it wasn't the manufacturers fault, it was the BATFE and US Attorney who didn't think prosecuting a straw buyer was worth the effort.

[LuckyTheDog]

116. I have not given BATFE "a pass" on anything.

I have not even addressed BATFE directly. So, your post is kind of specious.

[Lee-Lee]

119. By ignoring them and placing responsibility elsewhere you are giving them a pass

Your desire to place responsibility and blame on parties at best tangentially related to the crimes, while ignoring that there is an entire law enforcement arm who is supposed to address those crimes and has far more power and authority to do so, gives that law enforcement body a pass while you focus on someone with far less ability and responsibility for stopping those crimes.

But the BATFE doesn't make as good a villain for your agenda, nor does holding them accountable get the retrictionists closer to their real goal of shutting all dealers and manufacturers down, so I can see why you focus where you do.

It's in the best interest of the real agenda of restrictionists for the BATFE to keep on failing to prosecute and stop this stuff so you can blame everyone else.

[LuckyTheDog]

128. Nope.

I merely stated that the gun makers have a responsibility, too and it's about time they start living up to it.

The fantasies you dream up about my "real agenda" and goals are kind of bizarre and not really interesting or original.

[EL34x4]

22. " It’s time to repeal the gun industry’s exceptional legal immunity"

Yeah, I'm sure today's Republican-controlled Congress is going to get right on that.

[patsimp]

30. absolutely. that is vital [phone]

[beevul]

35. It became necessary. If you have a problem with it, blame those who made it so. N/T

[Travis_0004]

36. Im not so sure its exceptional

People were launching frivolous lawsuits, so a law was needed to stop them. You can still sue if its defecive.

Its also not unprecedented. There is also a cheeseburger bill that says you can not sue a restaurant for making you fat. It was passed to eliminat frivolous lawsuits.

[Waldorf]

42. They don't have no exceptional immunity. People just can't sue them if somebody

misuse's their product. If they put out a product which blows up when you fire it, they can be sued. Do you think its ok if I take my Chevy truck, run down some people on the sidewalk, and the Chevy dealership and GM be sued for my actions?

[beevul]

46. The photo in the OP is completely appropriate for the article...

Like the article and the anti-gun movement, it too shoots blanks.

[Eleanors38]

82. And a floating stovepipe as well!

[NCTraveler]

49. yes yes yes

Stop protecting the one percent.

[sarisataka]

51. And if it should get repealed

then what?

[aikoaiko]

56. Nope, the PLCAA is good law.

Not going away no matter who shouts about it.

[X_Digger]

70. Good luck with that.

I should also be able to sue Seagrams if some drunk plows into my family. And he was driving a ford, let's sue them, too.



Moronic.

[LuckyTheDog]

72. Not even close. But thanks for the NRA talking point.

The writer of the article wants to make gun manufacturers responsible for their OWN behavior, not the behavior of individuals.

For your Seagrams analogy to work, the booze makers would have to be engaged in a loosey-goosey trade to shady liquor stores that they should know sell alcohol to minors. If, because of that, you were hit by a 17-year-old drunk driver who bought booze at one of those stores, then culpability might include the maker of the booze.

[X_Digger]

95. But Seagrams makes a product that is capable of impairing your judgement!!

No, seriously, that's the analogous argument that was used in New Orleans against Beretta, I believe it was. But guns.. can kill people!11!!11!! They shouldn't make something so dangerous-- they should invest in making something non-lethal, and if they don't, why, that makes em liable!

Oh look, I have deja vu..

Think about what the threat of liability for defective cars like the Ford Pinto has done for auto safety, or how the risk of liability for a dangerous product like the Dalkon Shield contraceptive device gives good incentives to the manufacturers of pharmaceuticals and other medical products. Why should the makers of firearms be any different?

Gunz is defective cause they might kill someone!!11!!

[LuckyTheDog]

97. But nobody is saying that gun makers...

... Should be sued every time a gun is used illegally. So go build your straw man somewhere else.

[X_Digger]

98. Read your own link.. the passage I quoted, fer crissakes!

Guns are too dangerous, they might kill people! Heaven forfend! Someone should sue em!



Yeah, I won't be crying crocodile tears because a Brady Bunch Lawyer lost his meal ticket.

[GGJohn]

100. But that's exactly what was happening pre PLCAA.

Big city mayors, along with the Brady Org., got together and came up with the strategy of suing the firearm man. for the express intent of bankrupting the industry with SLAPP suits, it badly backfired on them with the passage of the PLCAA in 2005.

IOW, the gun control org were their own worse enemies.

[GGJohn]

96. That's exactly the same analogy,

and that ain't an NRA talking point.
Firearm man. are responsible for their own behavior already, if they break the law, the ATF will come down on them like a sack of cement.

[brooklynite]

99. Perhaps Sen. Sanders could introduce the Bill?

[smirkymonkey]

101. K&R

And completely in agreement!

[libodem]

102. .

[clif]

127. KISS

Perhaps if we had a law making it mandatory for all Gun owners to carry Liability Ins. It could help.When the Insurance industry is on the hook for accidental discharges & proper storage, it might make owners think twice about leaving weapons loose. It might even save a few thousand lives.
Mostly Children's & next door neighbors.But I digress

[mwrguy]

131. repeal it and sue every time a manufacturer's product is used to murder someone

Kids get killed with a Bushmaster? Sue Bushmaster.

Redneck shoots his wife with a Kel-Tec? Sue Kel-Tec.

rinse and repeat

[virginia mountainman]

137. repeal it and sue every time a manufacturer's product is used to murder someone

Kids get killed with a Ford? Sue Ford.

Redneck runs over his wife with a Toyota? Sue toyota.

rinse and repeat

_______________________

Don't blame me for pointing out how silly you sound, it is just a service I provide at times.

[X_Digger]

139. And *this* is exactly why the law was passed in the first place.

You can't get what you want via legislation, so try to back-door you goals.

Good luck with that.

[Lizzie Poppet]

140. Yep: it's an anti-democratic tactic.

[aikoaiko]

135. I think not. It was put in place to prevent anti-RKBA groups from trying to financially hurt...

... dealers and manufacturers.

For that I am grateful to congress.