General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: How Bernie Sanders Helped Derail a Promising Legal Fight Against Gun Violence [View all]DanTex
(20,709 posts)But, it seems you think that the only way a lawsuit can be "successful" is if it actually goes to court. That's obviously absurd. The rest of your post is standard NRA nonsense about how what S&W agreed to was "undesirable and unnecessary". That's an opinion, and you have a right to it, but people who care about gun violence naturally will have a different opinion than the NRA. But people's opinions about whether or not those changes were good or not are irrelevant to the question at hand.
Because there can be no arguing that the changes were significant, and that is what makes the lawsuit successful. If a chemical company is sued and forced to clean up toxic waste, I'm sure some right-wing nuts would similarly argue that the clean up was "undesirable and unnecessary" because they don't care about the environment any more than the NRA does about gun violence. In fact, the way the NRA reacted only further proves just how successful the lawsuit was. After all, if the changes were tiny and insignificant, the NRA wouldn't have gone on to organize a boycott. The fact that they did further proves how impactful the lawsuit settlement actually was.
If the lawsuit were actually frivolous, as you contend, none of that would have happened. Instead, it would have been thrown out of court and the plaintiffs would have been forced to pay S&W's legal costs.
Being subject to the same civil laws as everyone is not "coercion", no matter how hard you try to paint it that way. The fact of the matter is, the gun industry was (and, thanks to PLCAA, continues to be) acting in a way that would result in serious civil liabilities if they were any other industry without special immunity.