Appeals Court Reinstates Wrongful Death Suit Against Gun Industry

[Wonk]

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A federal appeals court Thursday reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit against the gun industry in a decision expected to re-ignite debate over legislation immunizing gun makers from being sued for crimes committed with their products.

Thirty-three states already have laws exempting gun manufacturers and distributors from such suits. The House in April passed a bill to extend the prohibition on such suits nationwide and President Bush has said he would sign it. Senate Democrats have threatened to filibuster the proposal.

The 2-1 ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstates a lawsuit filed against gun manufacturers and distributors whose weapons were used by a white supremacist who shot a Filipino-American postal worker to death and wounded five people at a Jewish day care center in a 1999 Los Angeles-area rampage.

(snip)

Since 1998, at least 33 municipalities, counties and states have sued gun makers, many claiming that manufacturers, through irresponsible marketing, allowed weapons to reach criminals. None of the suits has resulted in a manufacturer or distributor paying any damages.

more...
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAU61BA9ND.html

[funkyflathead]

1. Tain't going anywhere

These lawsuits on guns are always thrown out.

Support lawsuit premeption- Thomas Daschle does. It's common sense.

Glock can't be blamed for what this guy did.

[beevul]

2. I have only 2

questions.

Are there any other manufacturers or distributors are held accountable for CRIMINAL MISUSE of the products they sell?

Should there be any manufacturers or distributors are held accountable for CRIMINAL MISUSE of the products they sell?

[MrBenchley]

3. As somebody said yesterday....

"God forbid we take a little personal responsibility for our actions."
Say, which corrupt industry is it that's struggling mightily to avoid all legal liability by getting the GOP to ram a really wretched bill through Congress exempting it in a way no other industry is exempt? I know it will come to me in as moment.

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. Just an industry

Trying to protect their rights and ours.

[BullDozer]

37. Dems support it too

getting the GOP to ram a really wretched bill through Congress

Right it's all the GOPs doing.

If you mean bill S. 659 that Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle and Max Baucus approve of and which the house has already passed, by a vote of 285-to-140, it's version of the bill H. R. 1036.

[DocSavage]

5. Using this logic

So, if we use the logic of the 9th circut, Rush Limbaugh is off the hook, becasue the drug companies should have known that he was allegedly purchasing schedule 2 narcotics without a perscription. That being against the law, they should have put a stop to it.

Another example would be an arsonist that purchases gasoline from Texaco and sets a fire in an apartment, killing 15 people. Well, I am sure that Texaco should be held responsible.

It is unfortunate that we cannot sue the court. I thought these people had an education.

[MrBenchley]

6. Wow, so that's RKBA "logic"

No wonder that crowd thinks Mary Rosh is a real scientist...

[a2birdcage]

8. Not immune to everything!

Instructions: Please read and re-read until you get it through your head that they will only be immune from lawsuits designed to do nothing else to bankrupt them. I know that your little freedom hating agenda thought this would be an effective tactic to getting rid of firearms but soon (not soon enough) it will be reality. Slowly but surely you freedom hating control freaks will be out of business.

H.R. 1036, as was its predecessors, was introduced presumably in response to these lawsuits. The bill prohibits civil actions from being brought against manufacturers or distributors of firearms or ammunition products, or trade associations of such manufacturers or distributors, for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm by the injured person or by a third party. The bill further requires the dismissal of any action encompassed by the bill pending on the date of the bill’s enactment. Under the specific terms of the bill, only five specified causes of action would be permissible against protected members of the gun industry. They are (1) transfers where the transferor has been convicted of violating Section 924(h) of title 18; (2) actions alleging negligent entrustment (as defined in the bill) or negligence per se; (3) actions alleging knowing and willful violation of a federal or state law relating to the sale or marketing of the product, where the violation was the proximate cause of the harm; (4) breach of contract or warranty claims; and (5) actions for physical injury or property damage directly due to the design or manufacturer of the product, when used as intended.

[MrBenchley]

9. Yeah, surrrrrre....

And Wayne LaPierre is queen of the faeries...

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[a2birdcage]

7. Outstanding!

"None of the suits has resulted in a manufacturer or distributor paying any damages."

This is outstanding news. On another note I was pulled over for speeding last night in my Chevy. This morning I filed a lawsuit against them for designing a car that can exceed the posted highway speed limit. Let's see how much money I can get.

[CO Liberal]

11. And The Tobacco Industry Had a Perfect Record At One Time

Not any more. Look for the gun industry to lose a big suit one of these days. It can and will happen.

[MrBenchley]

13. Great point...

Remember, many of the same right wing pieces of shit publicly defending this disgraceful bill also used to swear up and down that Big Tobacco had done absolutely nothing it could get sued for.

[Muddleoftheroad]

15. Funny thing about tobacco

I don't see it mentioned in my copy of the Constitution.

[MrBenchley]

17. Nope....

You won't see "individual right to own guns" there either....just the right of we the people collectively to keep and to bear arms in a well regulated militia for the defense of a free state...

[a2birdcage]

18. Freedom Hater logic:

The only way to defend a free state is to make sure that the opposing government (who the state would obviously be defending themselves from) supplies them with the arms to do so. Makes perfect sense to me.

Edited to add:

1. The Text of the Amendment Refers to an Individual Right

The Second Amendment, like the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, refers to a "right of the people," not a right of the states or a right of the National Guard. The First Amendment guarantees the people's right to assemble; the Fourth Amendment protects the people's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; the Ninth Amendment refers to the people's unenumerated rights. 1 These rights are clearly individual -- they protect "the right of the people" by protecting the right of each person. This strongly suggests that the similarly-worded Second Amendment likewise secures an individual right.


What about the seemingly odd two-clause construction, which some commentators have called "unusual," "special," and "nearly unique"? 2 It turns out that there's nothing odd about it at all. During the Framing Era, dozens of individual rights provisions in state constitutions were structured the same way, providing a justification clause explaining the right, and then an operative clause securing the right. The 1842 Rhode Island Constitution's Free Press Clause, for instance, reads

The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments of any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . . . . 3
Just as with the Second Amendment, the second clause secures a right, while the first justifies it to the public.

And the two clauses of the Amendment are entirely consistent. The second clause guarantees a "right of the people," which is the right of each individual. The first clause explains that this right helps further a "well-regulated militia," a legal term of art that means "the body of the people capable of bearing arms" (here I quote from the New York Ratifying Convention's proposal that eventually became the Second Amendment 4) -- the entire armed citizenry, not some small National Guard-type unit. The current Militia Act, enacted in 1956 and derived from the original 1792 Militia Act, defines the "militia" as including all able-bodied male citizens from 17 to 45; 5 given the Court's sex equality jurisprudence, I feel comfortable saying that every able-bodied citizen from age 17 to 45, male or female, is a member of the militia. This is quite consistent with the second clause's securing an individual right to every person.

[Spoonman]

21. I guess we should

believe you over the scores of scholars, courts and congressional committees that unanimously agree that "the people" refers to individual right!

I for one will believe the REAL experts!

[Spoonman]

19. Apples and Oranges... to use your own phrase

So where are all these criminal smokers?

[CO Liberal]

20. No - Apples and Apples

The tobacco industry thought it was invincible, just like the gun industry.

[Spoonman]

22. Reality check

The argument is the LIABILITY DUE TO THE CRIMINAL USE OF A PRODUCT !!!!!!!

Jeez some people will try anything to support an argument, regardless of validity.

[Muddleoftheroad]

23. Fortunately

The gun industry doesn't trust the courts and is going to Congress to make sure our rights and theirs are protected.

[CO Liberal]

24. Actually.....

....they're going to Congress to call in their markers and have the asshoes thay've boought over the years protect them.

[MrBenchley]

25. See what blood money can buy from the GOP?

So much for the "rule of law"....

[Muddleoftheroad]

27. Not just the GOP

And not just for money. Lots of people believe in protecting their rights for that reason alone.

[DonP]

28. No ruleof law? Better get a gun quick!

If you really believe the rule of law is gone then you'd better get a gun because the only other choice is "survival of the fittest", while you and your friends try and ressurect the rule of law.

I recommend a surplus CMP M-1 Garand, delivered right to your door, assuming of course you don't have any felony convictions and can meet the other qualifications. Only $400 for a Danish return, plus $20 in shipping.

[DoNotRefill]

26. Here's the thing....

successful tobacco liability suits are based upon the concept that the tobacco companies KNEW that they were selling a product that would cause harm to ALL users. The product, when used as intended, was unsafe. They deliberately hid that knowledge.

The gun industry sells a product which everybody admits can be abused, but which doesn't cause harm to every person that uses it. Now if a gun company sold a product that was unsafe (ie blew up when used properly), they could be (and are) held liable for putting out an unsafe product. The liability shield law wouldn't change this liability, it would simply protect them from suits regarding abuse of the product by a third party.

[MrBenchley]

29. Hahahahahaha....

"successful tobacco liability suits are based upon the concept that the tobacco companies KNEW that they were selling a product that would cause harm to ALL users."
Not even close to true....successful tobacco liability suits are based upon the deception and dishonesty of the tobacco indfustry as a whole...

"The judge presiding over the Cipollone trial says he had found evidence of a conspiracy by three tobacco companies that is "vast in scope, devious in its purpose, and devastating in its results." "

http://www.health.fi/smoke2html/Pages/Smoke2-47.html


"given the broad statutory grants of standing applicable to
certain consumer protection statutes, it does have standing to
pursue relief for violations of deceptive trade practices, false
advertising, and unlawful trade practices statutes."

http://ash.org/legal/minn.html

Worth noting that Big Tobacco went to court claiming that the Surgeon's General warning label gave it immunity from lawsuits, and got laughed out of court.

[DoNotRefill]

32. Ummm...MrBenchley...."deception and dishonesty"....

means that they knew the product was bad for people when used as intended, and deliberately didn't tell anybody, and hid the fact.

Sometimes I think you disagree with me just to be deliberately contrary, even when we agree on something. Why is that?

[MrBenchley]

33. No, refill

It means they were deceptive and dishonest.

They had known from at least the 1950s that nicotine was addictive...and yet not only did they openly lie about that, they INCREASED the amount of nicotine.

In the case of the gun industry, there are findings that the industry KNEW their product was going into the wrong hands and not only took no steps to prevent it, but did all they could to encourage it. And what could be more deceptive than Mary Rosh's phony research--paid for by the industry throuygh a phpny foundation? Or the "grassroots support groups" like LEAA...created and funded by the NRA.

[DoNotRefill]

34. Where's your proof....

that they encouraged the diversion of guns from the legal stream of commerce?

[MrBenchley]

35. The same place

where the proof that I said anything about the "diversion of guns from the legal stream of commerce" is...

Show me that first.

[a2birdcage]

36. BUSTED!

You got nothing Bench! Awaaaahaahahahahahahah!

[MrBenchley]

39. I got the RKBA crowd lying again...

as usual.

[DoNotRefill]

38. You said:

"In the case of the gun industry, there are findings that the industry KNEW their product was going into the wrong hands and not only took no steps to prevent it, but did all they could to encourage it."

That's diversion of guns from the legal stream of commerce. Do I need to state everything in words of less than two syllables?

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DoNotRefill]

41. Sorry....

this kind of legislation FAR predates the DC sniper (and consequently the suit against Bull's Eye). This kind of legislation was geared towards stopping frivolous lawsuits filed by municipalities and states from suing manufacturers for the actions of the State's or localities citizens.

BTW, if it's all about protecting Bull's Eye, then why is Bull's Eye probably NOT exempt from lawsuits under it? After all, if the plaintiffs can show that Bull's Eye operated in reckless disregard of the law, a suit against them would certainly NOT be precluded by this kind of legislation.

Anything that doesn't agree with your position 100% is "spinning it" to you, regardless of the actual facts.

[MrBenchley]

42. Well, hell

the gun industry has been trying to engineer this kind of crap for years.

"This kind of legislation was geared towards stopping frivolous lawsuits filed by municipalities and states"
<sarcasm>Yeah, those frivolous municipalities and states....what a wacky seat of the pants bunch!</sarcasm> Who are you trying to kid?

"BTW, if it's all about protecting Bull's Eye"
Yeah, ,that's right refill...that's why I said the most prominent of those lawsuits...because I meant ALL of them were.

Next time you want to spin, refill, better do it more skillfully.

[DoNotRefill]

43. Sorry....

that my "spinning" isn't up to your expert standards. Would you teach me how to do it right? I only want to learn from the best... ;-)

[MrBenchley]

45. Here's a tip

Do what I do and stick with the truth....that way you can cut and paste what the other person says...

[DoNotRefill]

46. BWAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!

No comment necessary.

[MrBenchley]

47. No comment possible

either...

[a2birdcage]

30. Very well said.

[slackmaster]

31. Well said indeed

Every puff of every cigarette that gets smoked causes real harm to at least the person who smokes it. Most guns are never used against a person. Most bullets fly harmlessly into a backdrop.

Any comparison between the tobacco industry and the gun industry is tenuous at best.

[beevul]

44. Later you can......

-(because they don't make a car that detects the speed limit where you're driving, detect whether the driver has liscence and insurance AND because cars don't have red brakelights that would be an indicator EVEN to the ignorant, that a car is stopping in front of them at night)-

threaten to sue them if they don't sign a contract with you and the government to make serious advances in "smart car technology" on thier timetable.

Chuckle