Why shouldn't the gun industry be liable for damage done by its products? Calling All Progressives!

[TomCADem]

On the day of the March for Life it is important to note a key moment when members of Congress did not merely fail to take action to pass gun control laws, but when they actively conspired with gun makers to immunize them from damages and suits that result from their products. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. Gun makers are making a killing when it comes to profits and the promotion of gun culture. Shouldn't they be held responsible for the damages that flow from their efforts to market and distribute such dangerous products?

Right wingers always talk about responsibility. Well, lets start holding politicians accountable for holding gun makers responsible, rather than coddling them. Here is a great article by noted legal scholar Erwin Cherminsky, the Dean of UC Berkeley Law School:

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.

The massacre in Las Vegas occurred because gun companies make semi-automatic weapons that are easily converted into automatic weapons that can kill large numbers of people in a short amount of time. Gun manufacturers take automatic military weapons like the M-16 and modify them into legal, semi-automatic weapons, like the AR-15. They can be turned back into automatic weapons, through bump stocks or other techniques that are described on many websites. Ammunition magazines with large capacity are manufactured that serve no purpose for hunting or sport.

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.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8xde4z/sandy-hook-families-are-still-fighting

Sandy Hook Families Are Still Fighting

As survivors of the tragedy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High demand answers from pro-gun politicians across Florida and the country, the families forever connected to a similarly infamous school up North are still waiting for a chance at justice. A little over three years ago, several relatives of victims in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, filed a lawsuit against AR-15 manufacturer Bushmaster—the parent company of which is Remington—seeking both monetary and punitive damages, as well attorney's fees and injunctive relief. At at the time, the suit seemed extremely unlikely to go forward because of a federal law protecting dealers and manufacturers from liability over gun deaths. But in a remarkable move, a judge said more than a year later that discovery could proceed, and even set a tentative trial date of April 3, 2018.

The families hit another roadblock when the same judge dismissed the suit in the fall of 2016. But the plaintiffs kicked the case up to the Connecticut Supreme Court on appeal, where a panel of judges are still waiting to decide if a creative legal argument might get the claim around the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA.)

Basically, the lawyers for the families have tried to claim two exceptions to that law. One is that the sale of the AR-15 to shooter Adam Lanza's mom violated a state law; the second has to do with how the gun has been advertised. Although the judges could decide whether the exceptions are valid at any time, Remington recently announced it was planning to file for bankruptcy, adding another wrinkle to an already-strange legal saga.

[msongs]

1. maybe a democrat could introduce a repeal of this provision in congress. maybe? nt

[Angry Dragon]

3. +50,000

[world wide wally]

2. And for no reason beyond blatant corruption of the GOP

[Crunchy Frog]

4. The humpers will be along to gunsplain why any minute.

[aikoaiko]

5. Im ok with PLCAA.

As long as the manufacturers or dealers aren’t breaking laws , they should be protected from emotion-based lawsuits.

[TomCADem]

6. Under That Logic, Why Not Protect Opiod Makers, Tobacco Companies...

...car companies, etc.?

You have opiod makers rightfully getting sued for efforts to get people hooked on opiods. Look at Utah. Yet, you have law makers bending over backwards to protect gun makers.

[Jim Lane]

7. Those companies ARE protected from the kinds of lawsuits being called for here

Last edited Sun Mar 25, 2018, 07:11 AM - Edit history (1)

At Charlottesville, one of the Nazis drove his car into a crowd of demonstrators, killing Heather Heyer and injuring several others. Those victims have no cause of action against the manufacturer of the automobile.

There are restrictions on advertising and other ways that companies promote their products. The PLCAA doesn't immunize gun manufacturers from suits for violating such rules. As the linked article states, the PLCAA governs suits "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.”

I favor legislation to address the gun problem. I oppose the back-door use of courts to circumvent the legislative process by imposing liability on defendants we don't like.

And I am not now, nor have I ever been, a gun-humper. I've never even owned any type of firearm.

ETA: The basic point of the PLCAA is to block lawsuits that would be analogous to a suit by a Charlottesville victim against the automobile manufacturer. Whenever Congress passes a law, however, lawyers set to work looking for loopholes, strained interpretations, legislative oversights, etc. It would obviously be reasonable to amend the law to fix any problems of that sort.

For example, this report from the Congressional Research Service notes that one of the PLCAA exceptions allows an action for "negligent entrustment" if a gun dealer sells a gun to someone when the dealer "knows, or reasonably should know," that the buyer is likely to misuse it. The problem is that, if you make your way through the chain of definitions in the law, you find that a manufacturer selling directly to such a person might not be a "seller" as defined in the law and might therefore be immune. My guess is that Congress, in drafting the exception, was thinking about gun shops and simply overlooked the possibility of direct sales by manufacturers. That loophole should be closed. A manufacturer selling direct to the public should be held to the same standards as a dealer.

[aikoaiko]

9. Well I dont think opioid manufacturers are doing anything wrong

It’s the prescribers who are writing Rxs to people who don’t need them who need to be in jail.

Tobacco was different because they were caught lying about their product.

[TomCADem]

17. Under That Logic, Gun Makers Should Internalize The Damages They Create

You correctly note that the suppliers should be held liable for pushing and over promoting a product that causes harm. Well, under that logic, gun makers should be sued to internalize the costs they create, rather than create an artificial immunity against such costs. As John Oliver noted, gun makers have invested millions promoting gun culture and the proliferation, access and stock piling of guns. They should bear the resulting costs.

[aikoaiko]

18. Thats not what I said.

I said the prescribers (drs, PAs, etc) who are breaking the law by prescribing opioids to people who shouldn't have them are the problem and should be sued. Analogously, gun sellers who sell to prohibited should be and CAN BE sued even under PLCAA.

I'm fine with drug companies promoting opioid products that when used as directed as safe and useful.

[Tavarious Jackson]

10. They are the ONLY manufactures of ANYTHING

that are protected.

[aikoaiko]

11. Im ok with that.

Because protecting manufacturers and dealers who follow the law protects a civil liberty that is under threat of emotion-based lawsuits.

[Tavarious Jackson]

12. Wow.

Guns can be defected, manufactures are more likely to be negligent knowing they are immune from being sued.

[aikoaiko]

13. PLCAA specifically doesnt cover negilent design or entrustment

Gun manufacturers and dealers can easily be sued if they break the law or create or sell a defective product even with PLCAA.

[TomCADem]

15. Emotion Based Lawsuits? Sandy Hook families push to reinstate lawsuit against gun manufacturer

You suggest that people are making up the deaths of their children. The reason why there are lawsuits are not because people are having a mood swing. The lawsuits are being filed because peoples' loved ones have died.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/sandy-hook-dad-utmost-faith-case-families-hope/story?id=51137338

Nearly five years after 26 people were gunned down in a Connecticut elementary school, one Sandy Hook father says the victims' families have "not lost one ounce of confidence" in their case and they hope to reinstate their lawsuit against the parent company of the AR-15 used in the attack.

Sandy Hook families argued to Connecticut's highest court today to reinstate their lawsuit against Remington Outdoor Co. -- the parent company of the manufacturer of the AR-15 military assault weapon used in the December 2012 elementary school massacre in Newtown.

Adam Lanza, 20, shot and killed his mother before going to the Sandy Hook Elementary School, where he used an AR-15 to gun down 20 first-graders and six educators, before killing himself.

The families of nine victims who were killed and one teacher who survived are part of the lawsuit which argues that Remington, the parent company of the manufacturer, Bushmaster, knowingly marketed a military weapon to civilians.

[aikoaiko]

16. Of course I'm not saying they werent slaughted - the Sandy Hook massacre happened.

Last edited Sun Mar 25, 2018, 01:57 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm saying the emotionality of 20 slaughtered children can be used to find a company or store liable for damages even when they did nothing wrong. Cases can be argued and won on emotionality even when the law doesn't really support that outcome.

[X_Digger]

14. Actually, no, they're not. Vaccine makers and airplane mfgrs have similar protections.

See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Aviation_Revitalization_Act

[Vinca]

8. I hate guns, but it's not a secret what guns are made for.

I don't see how gun manufacturers can be treated any different from a washing machine company. If the gun is defective and blows off your hand you get to sue, just as you might if the washing machine had an electrical defect and burned down your house. You couldn't sue the washing machine company if your kid decided to throw a bag of concrete in during the wash cycle. Likewise, how could you sue a gun manufacturer if your kid took someone else's firearm to school and shot the janitor? In a perfect world, there would be no guns, but this isn't a perfect world. Change will happen at the legislative level - both state and federal - and the generation about to register to vote is going to be the change.

[a kennedy]

19. Damn good idea.....and ALL the Democratics should rally around this idea......

although that’s a radical idea, and the A+ NRA Dems won’t be calling for this, I think it’s really a great idea.