Connecticut Senator Not Happy With Bernie Sanders’ View On Sandy Hook Lawsuit
Source: Huffington Post
"Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said Tuesday that Sen. Bernie Sanders’ views on allowing victims of gun crimes to sue manufacturers effectively disqualified him from the Democratic nomination.
Murphy, who has endorsed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for president, posted a series of tweets responding to Sanders’ interview with the New York Daily News.
According to an interview transcript the publication released Monday, the editorial board asked the independent senator from Vermont whether the victims of the Sandy Hook, Connecticut, shooting should be able to sue Remington, which manufactured the gun the killer used. Sanders said no. "
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/chris-murphy-bernie-sanders-gun-manufacturers_us_5703e496e4b083f5c608f35d
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/chris-murphy-bernie-sanders-gun-manufacturers_us_5703e496e4b083f5c608f35d
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)Bernie is right. If you are selling a legal product, and it is not defective, you cannot sue a company because their product works as designed. That's the way it works for anything you buy.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)I fully agree with Bernie 
It's shameful to see posts like the OP, pimping the bodies of murdered children and trying to make Bernie somehow responsible for it.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Aww, and there's the NRA talking point.....
Shit happens, right?
arcane1
(38,613 posts)It's dishonest to claim otherwise.
But if name-calling helps you feel better, go for it. I've never even held a gun, and never will.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)So I suppose you think Obama is just blowing smoke when he has to trudge to the podium once a month after some asshole shoots up a dozen people because he's been told it's his right to be armed and angry? Cause Wayne thinks so....
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)People are grasping at straws in order to taint Bernie. That's all they have. How about talking policies. Oh, I forgot, the Hillary supporters here don't really care much about that.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)....with Senator Sanders.
THAT'S what I was replying to. It's an NRA talking point used to deflect any and all conversation about guns. Democrats should not be using it to do the same. It's intellectually bankrupt.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)As any other product on the market is required to be made more safe with technological advances.
It's about the ENGINEERING phase.
Seat belts, airbags, cars that sense collision.
Gun makers actually had started developing technology to make their products safer but stopped because of the NRA.
Sanders supports this.
branford
(4,462 posts)Manufacturers are not required to actually invent new technology or be subject to tort liability.
In any event, such "safety features" still need to be proven and have to be consistent with the purpose of the product.
For instance, a "safety feature" that seriously risks a firearm not working when needed, such as all current "smart gun" designs, is a "defect," not a feature.
The problem is that gun rights opponents are annoyed that firearms work consistently, safely for the user, reliably and as designed and intended for those in lawful possession. Firearms are indeed weapons and protected by the Constitution. They cannot be effectively banned by courts through product liability law, particularly that which is inconsistent with established jurisprudence.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)If manufacturers and other gun profiteers have a lobby that promotes lax gun laws, stand your ground, etc., there is liability.
I would love to read the legal citations supporting such positions.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)He just says it, and runs.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Is a gun manufacturer liable for stand your ground laws?
Red Knight
(704 posts)But this makes no sense.
Would you sue a car manufacturer for every drunk driver who kills someone?
Would you sue a knife manufacturer or a baseball bat manufacturer for everyone killed by those weapons?
Look--if you want to pass legislation outlawing the manufacture of certain guns--I'm all for it.
But if these things are legal to produce(they are)---a company is going to try to sell them. And politically speaking--this will NEVER pass with the majority of Americans. It's a nice gesture but you may as well try to outlaw religion because that's what guns are in this country.
Good luck with that.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Auto makers, for instance, are required to constantly upgrade Autos to improve safety using newest technology.
Guns makes actually had been doing research into making guns safer but buckled under to the NRA.
Sanders approves of this and voted to make it legal for gun makers to do no further improvements in making guns safer.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)Not about Bernie being ineligible as pres but the families should be able to take anyone to court they think is liable. Let the courts sort it out. I for one would look forward to hearing the facts about the manufacturers' liability. Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to sell guns that have quick loading magazines carrying 100 rounds or more.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)a) to require that every gun be insured to compensate a potential victim for the cost of the damage that gun might inflict whether intentionally or negligently caused (including loss of lives);
b) make it a felony chargeable to the owner of the gun if a child is found having the possession of the gun.
These laws would make people stop and think before they bought a gun, would eliminate a lot of gun ownership of arsenals of guns (too expensive to buy the insurance each year) and discourage people who have children in their homes from having guns.
Although owning a gun is arguably a constitutional right, other basic constitutional rights including freedom of speech can be regulated, so we should better regulate the right to a gun.
Imposing liability on the manufacturers does not go directly to the problem of irresponsible, dangerous gun ownership and possession.
If we want more safety mechanisms on guns, we should pass laws requiring them. Maybe gun regulation should be a part of the EPA's assignment.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Perfectly said 
Native
(7,359 posts)and that is what Bernie did in '05.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)That's a myth. Gun manufacturers are still liable for negligence in construction or design. The law simply prohibits "nuisance suits" over things for which no manufacturer could possibly be directly responsible.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Please stop lying, you are smarter than that.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Insurance riders normally exclude criminal acts, do they not?
If someone goes to a ford dealership and buys a truck, and then proceeds to drive intentionally through schoolyards, do we hold the dealer or the manufacturer liable? Does the insurance company foot the bill for an obviously intentional criminal act?
If it does, I've never seen it.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)different. Also, if people can't buy the insurance for the guns then that would pressure gun manufacturers to put security on the guns that would help prevent children or unauthorized people from using them. That would stop some of the gun crime.
It is a very difficult issue. No one wants all the gun deaths. But how do you stop them. I don't think that making manufacturers among the potentially liable would help at all, and it might be unconstitutional.
And if far fewer people can own guns, all the better. A farmer who lives out somewhere on 1000 acres of land needs a gun. It is a business expense. The insurance costs would be part of the cost of doing business.
My neighbors in Los Angeles do not need guns. If they want them for sport, then the cost of the insurance would be a part of the cost of sport.
The insurance would, theoretically, get cheaper if we had fewer gun deaths. That would provide an incentive to those who want to own guns to be more responsible about their ownership, storage, etc. of the guns they own.
I think the insurance is the best way to reduce gun deaths in our country.
Felony child endangerment laws for gun owners when children get possession of gunds would help protect children and their families from irresponsible gun storage and "play."
Guns and children do not mix. And they should be kept away from each other.
The importance of the insurance requirement is that it would be an incentive for gun owners to get serious about gun safety and keeping guns out of the hands of people who should not have them.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It's actually not as expensive as you think, and it's largely offset by the costs of my homeowner insurance which gets a discount because I keep them in a proper safe.
But it doesn't protect against any intentional criminal acts I might commit. I don't think any insurance scheme would.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Think of the damages that have been incurred in these mass shootings. All people who want to own guns should help pay for the damages caused by those few who do those shootings.
That's the way it works with car insurance.
And yes, this insurance would be very different from most insurance because it would specifically but not entirely be purchased to cover damages from intentional acts. Difficult to organize but only fair to the victims who are often shot by indigent people.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Should all men pay for rapes committed by a small portion of penis-possessing folk?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)If gun owners don't pay, then the victims pay.
And that is absolutely not fair.
Why shouldn't all citizens pay for the damages caused by rapes?
In fact, we do to some extent pay for the healthcare of people who are injured by criminals. We pay when we buy health insurance.
Kind of hard to detach the penis from the penis-possessor.
But maybe the cost of insurance would cause some gun-possessors to think twice before purchasing a gun.
And people who have large arsenals should definitely think twice about having to insure a lot of guns.
What alternative would you suggest for dealing with the extreme number of shooting deaths that we have in our country?
Other developed countries do not have this problem. Why do you think we have so many shootings, especially mass shootings?
I should add that penis-possessors are born in possession.
Gun-owners CHOOSE to be in possession.
That means that the responsibility for having a gun is a choice. The responsibility for having a penis is not.
We should tax the choice. Nobody is born with a gun attached to their body.
I think the insurance idea is the best for cutting back on mass shootings. People will be careful about knowing how many guns they have and where they are and they will be less likely to land in the hands of the irresponsible if the gun is insured.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I would, however, have zero problem with having all of us pay for the cost of crime (gun-related, rape, etc.). I am a socialist, after all...
I have lots of ideas regarding reducing gun crime...but I'd consider the "gungeon" to be a better place to discuss them. Kinda deserves its own thread, and that's the dedicated group for it (or perhaps the other gun control group, but it gets very little traffic).
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)We have a house. We have insured it since the late 1980s -- paid lots of money to insure it every year. We had our first claim on our insurance a couple of weeks ago. It was caused by raccoons breaking into our attic.
Insurance would be purchased on the gun, not on the gun owner. Every gun would be considered equally likely to be involved in causing some injury to someone.
Seems fair to me.
In California, we charge a lot of taxes on tobacco purchases because we think it is fairer if the people who use the taxes pay the cost of the "insurance" for the health care that tobacco-users are more likely to need than those of us who do not use tobacco.
It's a very simple and common idea.
We require everyone to buy car insurance even though many drivers do not have accidents.
It's the way insurance works. And it should work that way.
Maybe increasing the taxes on gun sales would be another way to approach it.
branford
(4,462 posts)What you want is a punitive tax or some form of general victim compensation fund assessed solely against firearm owners.
Gun control advocates know that such proposals are fraught with serious constitutional problems and lack popular support, and are knowingly, and quite deceptively, calling their proposals "insurance" to gain some public sympathy and support.
The individual right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right. You cannot impose a tax on that right in order that people will chose not to exercise it. It would pass any level of unconstitutional scrutiny, being the equivalent to a "poll tax" or literacy test.
Insurance will also never cover intentional criminal acts as a matter of law and public policy.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)rights, but you cannot exercise them where you want when you want. You have to obey the regulations, and if you want to organize a group of people to assemble in the streets or on the sidewalks of Los Angeles, you will probably have to buy a permit and you will be charged.
Those who want guns should accept the regulation like all others who exercise fundamental rights. Guns cause a lot of deaths and injuries in our country. It is unjust to impose the cost of those injuries and deaths ON THE VERY VICTIMS of the guns that cause them.
I should think that gun owners would be the first to want to be insured against the likelihood of the cost of an injury or death due to a gun. That is because when you really look at the statistics and include accidental deaths and injuries due to guns, gun owners are the most likely victims.
As my dad used to say, "If somebody wants to shoot me, he will have to bring his own gun."
I say, "If somebody wants to shoot me, I should have the peace of mind that I can only have if I know that gun is insured and will pay to take care of my family should I be killed." And it should not be my responsibility to pay the costs of the injuries that people who own guns impose on others and on society.
At the same time, I do not think that the manufacturers of guns, a legally manufactured item, should be subject to liability for the actions of the gun owners.
branford
(4,462 posts)It doesn't matter what you think it is or what you want to call it, it is not insurance by any standard or definition.
There are 80-100+ million legal firearm owners in the USA, representing about 1 out of every 3 American adults, and about half of all households, with 300+ million legal guns. Only a tiny, infinitesimally small percentage of these people will be in any way responsible for a crime or accident related to their firearms (particularly since most gun crime is by repeat offenders already ineligible to own guns).
You claim "It is unjust to impose the cost of those injuries and deaths ON THE VERY VICTIMS of the guns that cause them." It would be similarly unjust (and largely unconstitutional) to impose these same costs of tens of millions Americans for who have not nor statistically will ever do anything wrong.
I suggest you focus your attention on the very small and decreasing population of violent offenders and/or propose we ALL contribute to the assisting crime victims generally. Most importantly, stop stereotyping and ascribing motives to many millions of your fellow citizens (and read up on the nature and public policy underlying insurance for your own edification).
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)If we could identify the gun owners likely to commit crimes or likely to cause accidents before they do then we could only require those gun owners to buy the insurance.
But that is impossible.
The large number of guns and gun owners means that spreading the liability across them all is the fairest thing to do and will cost less per gun owner than people might expect.
How else can we reduce the carelessness with guns including the fact that so many gun owners allow completely unqualified people to handle their guns?
At the very least we should require this insurance to cover the costs of damages caused by negligent gun owners. There are incredibly many of those.
And not all negligent gun use results in murder or death.
Some of it results in the gun owner ending up dead or the gun owner's spouse ending up dead or a police officer or some other innocent person ending up dead. It has to stop.
Perhaps the strangest gun incident in modern times is Dick Cheney's shooting of a fellow hunter some years ago.
I am not opposed to gun ownership, but I don't want to pay for the damages that guns cost any more than I, a non-smoker, want to pay for the additional costs that smokers incur when they become ill from smoking-related illnesses. We don't make smoking against the law even though we know it is harmful. We simply (here in California) charge a lot for tobacco products (and may be charging more in the future) due to taxes intended to cover the costs of dealing with the additional smoking-related healthcare costs.
Seems to me this is a rational thing to do.
If you have a mortgage on your house, your mortgage company probably requires you to show proof of insurance on your house. If you own a car, in California, you are required to insure that car. You can buy insurance to cover damage caused by an uninsured motorist.
I think this idea of requiring gun owners to insure their guns could be very successful. People will probably like it.
branford
(4,462 posts)Trying to convince me or anyone else that it's a good idea will not magically turn the proposal into actual insurance, nor obviate the significant constitutional and other legal and political impediments to the passage or implementation of the idea.
Further, you still unjustly want to penalize tens of millions of law abiding Americans because of the actions of a proportion so tiny it's barely a rounding error.
The "insurance" idea is also nothing new. It's been floating around for decades.
Polling has not indicated the idea has really gained any significant traction, and because of the aforementioned legal and practical problems, has never been successfully implemented.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I accept all sorts of ridiculous fucking regulations around firearms, all the damn time. Maybe if you carried a gun too, YOU would be more cognizant of the invisible imaginary lines I cannot cross, places I cannot be, ways in which I can't carry, what I can and cannot carry, how I can buy or sell them, how I can store them, etc.
You have apparently no idea or you wouldn't make that comparison.
Guns don't cause them. People with criminal intent cause them. Let's focus on those folks.
Let's go back to your ridiculous car example again. You pay property taxes directly as a property owner, or indirectly as a renter, no? Then you pay for EMS/Medical/Police services that cover injuries from automobiles, regardless of whether you have a car or even a driver's license.
I don't know what fantasy world you think you can construct here, but it would be nice if you spent a little time paying attention to how the world actually works today, and then maybe you can make a more informed argument to change things.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)What the fuck.
Do you not understand WHY insurance companies firewall against intentional criminal acts?
LisaM
(29,634 posts)They fight trigger locks, mental health assessment for people to be able to get assault weapons, they fought funding for studying it as a public health issue (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-21/break-the-nra-s-ban-on-gun-violence-research), the list goes on.
Since they fight every reasonable attempt at even the most modest proposals, at this point, how do you stem gun violence? I personally don't think it should have come to this, but you can't get the NRA to concede on anything, so suing the manufacturers is an obvious (to me) next step.
If they'd even back down on one thing, the public perception of them would rise enormously.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)It's simply a good idea.
TipTok
(2,474 posts).. Where the serious controllers will take every opportunity to get us as close to total confiscation for the masses, not the elite, as they can.
There is no incentive to negotiate when you know that any weakness or give or compromise will be exploited and non reciprocal.
Plus 2nd amendement supporters already have what they want. Mostly... So there is little for the control crowd to offer.
LisaM
(29,634 posts)You can yammer all you want about various conflicts and wars (which I likewise don't support) but the fact is that way more people in the US have been killed by gun violence since 2003 than in wars abroad. And some of the victims were between the ages of 5 and 7 at Sandy Hook. Since then, toddlers are killed every week or day, it's nauseating.
Sigh. sigh.
NutmegYankee
(16,478 posts)Connecticut even explored the topic after Sandy Hook, concluded it was impossible, and abandoned it. It's just flat out unconstitutional. It's not even a politically liberal concept given that it would limit guns to the wealthy and well-connected - a classic feature of right-wing politics.
But beyond all of the obvious flaws highlighted by others above in the thread, how would you enforce such an unlawful provision. For instance - I'm not going to pay for this insurance. What then? Are you going to hunt me down and murder me for owning family weapons that have been in the family for centuries in some cases? No joke, I have flintlock weapons that have been passed down that long. Not that I'd ever try to fire them - too dangerous given the age.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)keeping the insurance up would be required.
Another thing we could do is simply impose a high tax on gun purchases, a tax equal to the costs that gun ownership in general imposes on society.
I think I should clarify that I am not opposed to guns. My family members in the Midwest are big hunters. Some other of my family members live in mountain countries in which hunting is an important sport.
And I love venison. Really love it.
So my idea is not intended to punish gun owners but is intended to help cover the costs that victims incur due to the irresponsible gun owners that are out there.
Maybe the initial cost of the gun insurance or indemnification contract could be high and it could be lowered each years as the gun owner proves to be responsible in caring for, storing and using the gun?
I think this is an idea that would catch on. Gun accidents happen all the time. As do car accidents. These are dangerous things.
NutmegYankee
(16,478 posts)Awesome - hunting will go back the wealthy landed elite like it was in Continental Europe.
That is if your idea could even succeed, which it can't. Bummer those limited power governments inherent in Constitutional-republic Democracies.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)march down the street, you have to buy a permit and cover the costs. That something is a fundamental right does not mean it is free of charge.
If just one or two or a small group of people exercise the right to free speech in a public area that is deemed appropriate for the exercise of free speech, then no charge.
Our fundamental rights can be regulated. Churches have to comply with the building codes and generally buy liability insurance.
Gun owners should have to do the same. That something is a fundamental right and specified in the Constitution does not mean it cannot be regulated.
If the cost of the insurance would price poor rural people from hunting (which would be a bad thing in my view) then maybe we can get some pressure from those rural people to enact gun legislation that pays for the damages guns cost us and that keeps guns out of the hands of people who should not have them.
Life is a compromise. On guns we need to work together to lower the number of gun deaths and the frequency of mass shootings in our country. Gun owners should be at the front of the crowd in demanding gun safety laws that prevent these shootings as much as possible and that make the mass shootings of human beings a thing of the past.
NutmegYankee
(16,478 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,478 posts)This was actually discussed in Connecticut's legislature in hearings. It's a dead issue except on message boards.
You also fail to get that case law prevents burdensome fees or taxes against a Constitutionally protected activity. Legislation that add $15 to a gun sale to cover a victims fund would probably survive strict scrutiny. Fees like you propose or an annual insurance requirement won't. Like it or not, keeping and bearing arms is Constitutionally protected, meaning the people (like 4th and 9th, individuals) may own and use them for legal purposes, like hunting. The well-regulated clause refers to the power Congress already has in Article I, Section 8 to regulate the militia, and is not a power granted to Congress to limit private ownership.
In addition, cars are terrible example - they are a different class of property and the registration, fees, and licensing pertains to operation on public (government-run) roadways. If you don't pay insurance for your car, you only lose the privilege to operate the car on a public roadway. The state can't take the car away - it's your property. It doesn't have that power because of the 5th Amendment.
I do want to know your solution in the hypothetical situation where such laws did pass and people did not pay the fee. What would be the government response? Guns are private property and cannot be taken without court hearings under due process. And if taken, the government has to pay for them at fair market value (also 5th Amendment). This is a key reason you can't be charged an annual fee to keep guns - at that point it's rental, not ownership.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The Workman's Compensation system is an example of an insurance system created by the state.
So this would not be new.
The arguments in your last paragraph are utterly foolish. Requiring insurance is not a taking. Never has been. Never will be.
No one is talking about charging an annual fee to keep guns. But requiring people to pay into an insurance fund for guns would be just as legal and possible as requiring employers to pay into the Workman's Compensation fund for each employee they employ.
branford
(4,462 posts)or the constitutional problems with your suggestions.
You want punitive fees connected to firearm ownership, largely to dissuade people from owning guns. It does not matter how good an idea you believe it to be, or if you try to call it "insurance" or if the "fund" is state operated, it still essentially is an effective "poll tax" concerning constitutional right.
Again, these ideas are not new. They've been explored in some of the most anti-gun jurisdictions in the country. However, when it was time to actually design, pass and implement such legislation, practical and legal problems always prevailed.
NutmegYankee
(16,478 posts)Even in the recent ACA dispute over the individual mandate, it was upheld as a tax. But healthcare isn't a enumerated right and was upheld as a commerce regulation.
Number 2 - workers compensation is a regulation of commerce (businesses), which is a core power of Government for legislatures at both State and Federal levels. This is completely different than taxing the exercise of individual civil liberties.
One of us is making "utterly foolish" arguments - but it's not me.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)They make lots of money on insurance. And the fact insurance does not cover criminal acts means those companies will be a big cash cow.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)especially by mentally ill people.
I am not opposed to gun ownership. Not at all. I have family in the Midwest who do a lot of hunting. And some family from countries in which hunting is an honored sport.
My mother used to have as many as five deer IN HER BACKYARD in a small town in the Midwest. Without hunters, the population of deer and other animals would become a huge problem. (We just had raccoons in our house and caught them in a cage that does not hurt them. They have been released into the wild mountains near us.)
And besides, I love venison. So I am not opposed to guns. But . . . . I also think that there should be a way to compensate the victims of gun violence and accidents, and I don't think that those of us who have no guns should pay for it.
I think some DUers thought I was anti-gun with my insurance idea. Not at all. But think of it, if gun owners bought insurance for their guns it would encourage responsible gun ownership and a lot of the clamor for making manufacturers liable for the intentional actions and negligence of gun owners would be silenced.
Native
(7,359 posts)It is not about holding the industry liable. It is about giving the industry immunity. That's what the uproar in '05 was all about when the PLCAA was passed (and Bernie helped pass it). No other industry has immunity. This is what Senator Murphy meant when he said, "Democrats cannot nominate a candidate who believes that toy gun makers should be held to a higher legal standard than real gun makers."
It is up to the courts to decide what lawsuits have merit. If we gave immunity to the car industry like Bernie gave to the gun industry, where do you think we'd be now with all the air bag, brakes, steering, etc. issues that seem to be so prevalent? Do a little search on Google. And read my post further down, #110.
Personally, I'm not a one issue voter. And regardless of who gets the nomination, I will work my ass off to get her or him elected.
angrychair
(12,285 posts)Communications Industry is immune from some liability. Lots of industries have limited liability by law, drug manufacturers is another good example.
I agree there should not be direct marketing of lethal weapons to children, specifically by way of coloring or kid-oriented graphics on weapons or target-marketing toward children younger than 18. No different than cigarettes.
I think any and all gun marketing should carry a label stating:
"This is a lethal weapon. This device is unique among consumer products in that it was expressly invented to kill or otherwise injure a person or animal. Even the proper use or maintenance of this product carries inherit risk and those risks should be considered every time this weapon is used."
As Sanders has clearly stated and I agree, unless you can prove gross negligence on the manufactures part: illegal or false marketing or manufacturing defects, than I do not see how the gun manufacturers are any more liable than Honda is for the deaths caused by a drunk driver of a car they made.
Native
(7,359 posts)Honda can be sued; the gun industry can't. It used to be up to the courts to decide what lawsuits had merit, that is until the PLCAA. Bottom line - no industry should be given complete immunity. Even Bernie said in January that he'd co-sponsor a bill to repeal the PLCAA (which he voted for in '05). The PLCAA set a dangerous precedent. And I find it hard to believe that a senator who predicted the Panama Papers and, according to his supporters, almost everything else that has gone down in the last 30 years, couldn't see the intended much less unintended consequences of his vote. If you were around in '05, you'll remember that whole shit storm.
markpkessinger
(8,912 posts). . . if anybody could point to a single instance in which a gun manufacturer's negligence was at fault in any mass shooting around the country. But to date I have yet to see that.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,478 posts)A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.[1] Such lawsuits have been made illegal in many jurisdictions on the grounds that they impede freedom of speech.
There was an effort by some organizations to bankrupt manufacturers with lawsuits that would never succeed in court. Even without the PLCAA, these lawsuits fail under the courts because liability doesn't work this way. There has to be provable actual negligence - and these cases can't meet that burden. The purpose of such suits is to make political statements - which is fine as long as the plaintiff pays all legal costs of the defendant for frivolous suits.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,478 posts)And that they usually cloud out reason in many of your posts, but lawsuits just for the purpose of bleeding a company/manufacturer/person dry are nothing more than judicial sanctioned terrorism. It's an immoral tactic not much different from those used by anti-choice organizations opposed to the right to abortion. The target in each case are completely legal activities, but have dedicated legions of opponents who insist that they are saving lives through their actions.
I realize you will likely reply with another snarky response, but I wish there could be some civil and respectful discussion on this topic.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,478 posts)I've even pledged to "uphold and defend" the founding document of that form of government "against all enemies, foreign and domestic". I currently serve that government and I'd give my life to see that government continue on. Some might say that is irrational. I obviously disagree.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)a war zone.
NutmegYankee
(16,478 posts)That you disparaged it reiterates what I've always believed about you.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Did you believe your superiors who told you to hate Asians or Muslims, depending upon your war? This is America, not some trumped up war zone. Your gunz aren't needed here. Like I said, your creed sounds like that preached in militia compounds country wide.
A complete fantasy post. I never advocate carrying guns, yet you defaulted to attacking me based on that. You even heaped in accusations of racism. It demonstrates that you can't rationally argue your position - you have to default to strawmen.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)Is it too aggressive for your taste?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)TipTok
(2,474 posts)Instead of actual federal service.
You spend a lot of time thinking about scary guys with guns, don't you?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)a gun on to go to the store, like George Zimmerman, or look at themselves in a mirror.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)Interesting...
NutmegYankee
(16,478 posts)TipTok
(2,474 posts)
sarisataka
(22,695 posts)The Oath of Enlistment (for enlisted):
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
The Oath of Office (for officers):
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the _____ (Military Branch) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)use the same stuff to promote their hatred and gun BS. First time I read it (or whatever the close version was at the time) was when I was about to be drafted to go kill Asians, didn't really see that as protecting or defending the USA. Don't see being a gun fancier nowadays as protecting/defending USA either. Besides, one can do that without a gun.
branford
(4,462 posts)Research the immunity Congress provided to vaccine and certain airplane part manufacturers.
As you say, "Do a little search on Google."
Moreover, toy gun manufacturers are different from real firearm manufacturers. Real guns are not designed and intended to be used by children without proper supervision and there isn't a constitutional individual right (recognized by the official Democratic Platform) to keep and bear toys. These matters and other are legally quite important.
Lastly, if people sued the automobile manufacturers whenever a crime was committed with a car, the situation that predated the PLCAA with respect to firearms, I would confidently surmise that they too would have received immunity from Congress, largely on a bipartisan basis as it would have a significant financial impact on workers and unions in the auto sector.
Native
(7,359 posts)And when you say that people were suing the gun industry every time a crime was committed with a gun, that either makes you a lobbyist for the gun industry or simply out of touch with reality.
branford
(4,462 posts)Let's be clear. Other industries have indeed received various levels of legal immunity as the result of financially crippling and largely meritless lawsuits. Your "no other industry" claim was simply false.
Further, the PLCAA does not provide blanket immunity to firearm manufacturers. They can still be sued for actual design defects and certain other limited circumstances. A simple Google search will quickly reveal ongoing product liability lawsuits involving these companies, just like other industries.
Lastly, there's absolutely no question that for years before the passage of the PLCAA gun control proponents engaged in organized, large-scale political efforts to sue and bankrupt firearm manufacturers regardless of the merits of the case and prevailing jurisprudence, often initiated by states and cities using taxpayer funds. Virtually all of these lawsuits were unsuccessful when manufacturers could afford to defend themselves.
Feel free to embarrass yourself with petty and juvenile insults like accusing me of being a lobbyist for the gun industry. What I am, however, is a practicing litigation attorney whose professional background includes studying firearm related issues as a researcher for the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)There are 6 exceptions written into the law. Please do some research.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)Cheap_Trick
(3,918 posts)still_one
(98,883 posts)and the only response you have is to attack Hillary, instead of discussing the merits of Sanders's position, and yes, there are merits in it.
It's not a praise piece or an informative piece. Yeah, it's a hit piece.
And there are no merits
If so, let's go after knife, hammer, ax, etc. manufacturers too. Once they are sold, there is clearly a chance something bad could happen.
Yeah that makes no sense, just like holding a store or manufacturer liable for making and selling to those who qualify by law.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)can't single out one industry and make them liable for anything done with their product. How about the knife industry, the baseball bat industry, the auto industry, etc. Those products have been used to kill people. Sue the baseball bat industry because someone used their product to kill.
This is a good example when a liberal isn't really a liberal. One might think they are liberal because they want strong gun laws. However, when they want to violate the Constitution to get what they want, they lose the right to be a liberal.
I favor strong gun laws, but this law made a mockery out of real gun control.
HillareeeHillaraah
(685 posts)Not apples to apples but similarities are undeniable.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)addictive. And not everyone that dies from lung cancer can sue. I don't think anyone that died from second hand smoke has sued the tobacco industry. Apples to zebras.
RichVRichV
(885 posts)It was mistating and hiding the health risks was why they were sued. Now that they've come clean they're safe from suits (the health care costs are built into the sin tax now).
That fell under deceptive advertising which the gun manufactuers can still be sued for.
Response to still_one (Original post)
Photographer This message was self-deleted by its author.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)The manufacturers aren't doing anything illegal. Period.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)if they distribute or market them recklessly, or if they fail to develop safety features, then in ordinarily people could seek tort damages and the legal system could sort it out.
Bernie Sanders helped take that incentive towards greater safety away.
"The gun makers and dealers did nothing wrong" is not going to be an argument that plays in the South Bronx or East New York.
hack89
(39,181 posts)they overplayed their hand by conspiring with cities to overwhelm gun manufacturers with law suits and suing them out of existence. This law was the result. The only more harmful decision they made was pushing the first federal AWB.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)hack89
(39,181 posts)why is that not sufficient?
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42871.pdf
jg10003
(1,058 posts)The cigarette companies sold a product that they know was dangerous while publicly stating that cigarettes do not cause cancer. The tobacco companies suppressed their own research showing the link between smoking and cancer and tried to discredit independent research. The CEO's of the tobacco companies even lied to congress about smoking and cancer. Gun manufacturers do not deny their products are dangerous. They produce dangerous but legal products.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)...they never would've lost any of those lawsuits.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)People aren't going insane and shooting a bunch of people because of how guns are marketed. They are doing it because they are insane.
That makes sense. But that is not an issue in regard to mass shootings. If the safety features of a gun fail to work, and someone is harmed by it, that is like selling a car with defective brakes. But some asshole didn't go shoot 20 kids because of a failed safety feature.
The whole thing is a slippery slope of utter stupidity. I'm the last person that could be called "pro-gun", but I know a dumb idea when I see one.
Guns are legal. Guns manufacturers are legally allowed to create and sell them. They are not breaking any laws. Unless you change the laws, there are no grounds to sue them.
But hey, go ahead and allow people to bring forward a lawsuit and then watch them get laughed out of court and lose their money. That will be SO helpful.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)A court can find that absence of a known safety technology renders the product unsafe. For example, there are several technologies available that prevent firing of a gun by other than the authorized user of it.
Compliance with existing regulations does not completely avoid product liability, as it can happen that a court finds the regulations themselves are deficient.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)...and the technology failed without any tampering, then fine. No such law exists. But if it did and implementation failed, then sure, allow a law suit.
As far as I know, the only time a court is going to rule against a manufacturer is if they are knowingly doing something dangerous with their product and hid that fact, ie tobacco companies and lung cancer. That is not the situation with guns.
I'd love to live in a gun free society to be honest. But still, lets get real.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)An entire industry standard can be insufficient, and it doesn't matter whether there is a regulation or not.
I am not opining on what would be a matter for a court to decide on the facts. You may know a lot about guns, but clearly not much about liability law.
https://hbr.org/1987/09/product-liability-youre-more-exposed-than-you-think
Ford’s 1976 Mercury Cougar came equipped with a 425-horsepower engine and Goodyear radial tires. When Shelby Leleux pushed his Cougar to more than 100 miles an hour, a tire exploded, triggering an accident. Leleux was killed. His friend Floyd Dugas was seriously injured.
Leleux’ mother and Dugas sued Ford and Goodyear for selling a defective product. According to testimony, Goodyear’s tires had a maximum safe speed of 85 miles an hour. The companies claimed they weren’t responsible because Leleux hadn’t used the car as they intended. A Louisiana judge ruled that since the Cougar could go as fast as 105 miles an hour, Goodyear and Ford should have expected that some people might drive that fast and should have equipped the Cougar with tires able to handle that speed. It was insufficient for Ford’s driver’s manual to warn against going faster than 90 miles an hour.
branford
(4,462 posts)You might be interested in this analysis of the Sandy Hook lawsuit.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/16/lawsuit-filed-against-gun-manufacturers-and-dealers-over-sandy-hook-murders/
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The fact of the matter is that a court can find that a product is "defective" even if it is compliant with every regulation in existence.
Once again, you are confusing (a) having an opinion on the question with (b) whether a court is empowered to obtain an answer to it.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)rs too much money to operate under.
That's cheap shit, right there. That's not what the legal system is for.
People can sue over truly defective weapons. Done. Take your toys and go home.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)...individuals because they would lose.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Its yet another example of malfeasance by the pro-ban crowd, that makes getting meaningful gun control laws passed, impossible.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)But, I do understand there are people who cannot hold a conversation without ascribing some sort of emotional motivation to the other party. It's tremendously common here at DU.
I, frankly, don't give a shit whether these cases go to court or not. Not my circus. Not my monkeys.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Current output suggests an error, or an agenda.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I don't have an opinion on whether guns as sold are safe or not. That's a fact question, not a legal one.
The gun industry actively discourages the sale of various kinds of safety mechanisms on guns. There's a reason for that. And it is because they understand product liability law a lot better than you do.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Consumers actually seek some of those features, and some manufacturers cater. Taurus has an internal locking system for some handguns, much better than a trigger lock, in that it's more effective than an external third party lock. But it's a maintenance issue and a failure point, so it's not universally popular with customers.
Electronic locks are simply unworkable vaporware at the moment. It's not discouraged, it's infeasible. Progress has been made on crude brute force efforts, but until you see police and military adopting the technology (officers being shot with their own weapons is a serious issue) then you might actually consider it viable for the market.
To date, it's not. It's crapware/vaporware.
You know what's worse than a gun that goes bang when you don't want it to? One that Doesn't go bang when you expect it to.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)No, it's not ready for market.
Even if it was, the generally unpopular reaction of that audience is a reflection of politicization of the issue by limiting the types of guns available once the technology 'goes on the market', however shit it is at the moment.
Here's a clue; that technology wouldn't have slowed Adam Lanza down a bit at Sandy Hook. Not one bit. It's actually worthless.
Nor will you find a police officer using it, because they know full well, sometimes you have to shoot with your off-hand. Now what, wear two watches? And sometimes you have to grapple with the gun, if someone is trying to take control of it. That means having your hands NEAR the gun, authorizing it to fire.
This shit doesn't work.
Would I buy it? Yes, if it had a sub-dermal RFID chip I could implant in either hand, the battery in the magazine, so I can 'charge' the consumables at the same time, and it could be unlocked or authorized for multiple users, so I can use it and so can my wife.
We're at LEAST 5 years away from that sort of technology, and even then, someone could potentially defeat it by killing me and sawing my whole fucking hand off.
branford
(4,462 posts)There is an prodigious body of jurisprudence about what may constitute a "defective" product under various circumstances and whether a matter is entitled to go to the jury.
Numerous cases are decided on motions to dismiss, summary judgment or appeal in favor of defendants, including a very large number of purported "gun defect" cases the preceded the PLCAA. The law managed to garner the required Congressional support because such lawsuits were effectively held to be SLAPP-type suits designed to circumvent legislatures and abuse the courts with a strategy of trying to bankrupt an industry with legal fees without meritorious legal claims.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)After a few repetitions of the same claims and the same facts, the legal system does have mechanisms for dealing with frivolity.
branford
(4,462 posts)but they are mostly inefficient and generally don't sufficiently protect defendants.
Legislatures may also step-in to discourage or punish frivolous lawsuits, and many states and Congress have passed numerous anti-Slapp-type statutes, with the PLCAA just one of many within its general class of legislation.
In any event, you fail to address the inconvenient issue that prior to the PLCAA many of these "gun defect" lawsuits have already worked their way through the courts, mostly without success, and when plaintiffs were victorious, it usually was only because the financial cost of a fight would have been crippling to the defendants despite the merits of any defense.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Given the fact that the plaintiffs in these things are not generally running a profit making business in the first place, perhaps you can point me to these "free lawyers" who apparently work for them. Because even contingent fee litigation is contingent on something coming out the other side, and there are no contingent fee expert witnesses, etc.. If the plaintiff wants to depose you in a lawsuit for ten hours, then it's not as if that ten hours is any cheaper for the other side.
branford
(4,462 posts)Research the vast majority of the pre-PLCAA firearm litigation and you will see that most of it was commenced by anti-gun states and municipalities with taxpayer funds. It was political grandstanding with "unlimited" taxpayer money. You really fail to comprehend why and how the PLCAA gained support, and why given the current attitudes and statement of anti-gun lawmakers and people like yourself, the PLCAA and comparable state laws are here to stay.
Moreover, it doesn't matter if lawsuits are expensive to the plaintiff if they are frivolous. We don't seek to protect vexatious litigants, we seek to protect their victims, which in these cases is the firearms and industries.
It doesn't matter if you believe certain plaintiffs are sympathetic or some defendants loathsome. It does not change fundamental product liability law, and when the legal system is repeatedly abused, do not feign shock when the push-back is significant.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)You can attempt to lecture me all day about liability law. But you've yet to offer any concrete examples that would apply to the "mass shooter legally obtains gun from a dealer/manufacturer complying with all the laws" situation.
The case you are citing makes sense because of a painfully obvious safety issue. But it bears no relevance to the legal gun manufacturer situations we are talking about.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Can you explain this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/threats-against-maryland-gun-dealer-raise-doubts-about-future-of-smart-guns/2014/05/02/8a4f7482-d227-11e3-9e25-188ebe1fa93b_story.html
The latest skirmish over the nation’s first smart gun, marked this week by death threats against a Maryland gun dealer who wanted to sell the weapon, has raised doubts about its future and prompted some gun-control advocates to back away from legislative efforts to mandate the technology.
Engage Armament, a Rockville gun shop, endured an outpouring of vitriol from gun rights activists who fear the technology will be used to curtail their Second Amendment rights by limiting the kinds of guns they can buy in the future.
The protests echoed those against the Oak Tree Gun Club, a Los Angeles area store that offered to sell the smart gun and — like Engage Armament — quickly dropped the idea after opposition mounted. Electronic chips in the Armatix iP1 can communicate with a watch that can be bought separately. Then the gun cannot be fired without the watch.
Free market much?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)available for sale?
bwuh?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The existence of airbags eventually limited the viability of selling cars without them, because once they were a proven technology then, yes, they were required.
That happens with a lot of products. No, there is not a "free market" in the sense that one can now sell cars without airbags. They were, at one point, voluntarily introduced. But they proved to be so effective that, yes, they did become required.
You can't sell beer cans with pull tabs anymore either.
What categorical liability shields do, is to stymie the ordinary evolution of product safety.
People like to put their babies in cribs. One response to crib choking deaths would have been to say, "Well, we need to prevent liability suits against crib manufacturers, or nobody is going to make cribs." But, it is certainly true that you can't buy a crib with slats spaced wide enough for a baby's head to go between them anymore.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Nothing at all.
And there IS a market for the technologies. I'd buy them myself under certain circumstances. I have a kid. I don't want him getting ahold of and being able to use one of my guns, OR my neighbors guns by proxy of HIS kid.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)His mom took him shooting many times. Not unreasonable that even if that vaporware was in place, he still would have been able to carry out his plan.
He could have even cut one of his mom's fingers off and taped it to the handle, to foil a fingerprint reader if he WASN'T an authorized user. Big deal. Not like he didn't murder her anyway.
There is no safety feature you could build into any firearm to make it 'safe' if the user wants to kill children with it. None. The only possible 'feature' would be non-existence.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)There is no safety feature you could build into any firearm to make it 'safe' if the user wants to kill children with it.
That is an appropriate question for a court to rule on, one way or another.
You seem to confuse having a position on the ultimate issue with whether a court can or cannot decide the question. Those are two separate things.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)A court could certainly rule on a device that did not work as intended. A safety that failed to work as advertised or mandated by law.
It can't do much with mandating features that don't exist, and consumers don't want. This isn't a toy, like a lawn dart where commerce has a voice. This is weaponry. Meant to kill. Access to which we, as a people, have under our enumerated rights, like it or not.
Lanza's weapon wasn't defective. The law Sanders once championed is a good piece of legislation, that foiled a cheap and underhanded legal attempt to eradicate gun dealers by forcing themselves to defend against frivolous lawsuits.
The 'ban' crowd was hoist by its own petard, and the law was the end of that nonsense.
Don't like it? Repeal the 2nd amendment. (A technically possible goal.)
branford
(4,462 posts)it was fully compliant with Connecticut's own "assault weapon's ban."
Connecticut's legislature determined it was fit for consumer purchase.
So someone wants to be able to sue a manufacturer who sold a legal product in a legal manner to a person who was permitted to purchase that product? And people really think that is an effective use of the court system and one that should be permitted?
phazed0
(745 posts)So which gun manufacturer has failed to develop safety features that adhere to the Federal guidelines?
Dealers are not manufacturers. Surely you don't think that distributors should be held liable for manufacturer's mistakes, right?
So, exactly when do we start getting rid of Alcohol and Tobacco? Maybe we should get rid of cars because the driver could have an accident. Then we can move to quads, motorcycles and bicycles. All of these things are inherently dangerous, too.
How did Bernie take away incentives for greater safety? The incentives for gun safety lay in the law, not in a bill pertaining to holding manufacturers accountable for their users' idiocy.
This is where I split from the big "D" narrative. Guns are useful and safe in many situations. Not everyone lives in a big city. Self defense is a real thing when you live on a 40-acre farm, 35 miles from anything, and a weird car pulls up in your driveway looking to steal stuff on your carport or in your house. Yes, guns can be useful.. no, not everyone gets one... and yes, guns in largely populated areas makes a lot less sense.
This gun-paranoia thing on the D side is stupid. Bernie is right on.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)phazed0
(745 posts)The gun issue is what those states are voting on... considering the real, non-distraction issues that are at play now. Global Warming, Trade Deals, Corruption and money in politics... forget all that for the topic "guns"? Let alone that "suing" manufacturers is going to fix dick regarding the actual issue of people killing people with guns.
SMH
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)phazed0
(745 posts)because according to actual facts New York is listed as #47th in gun deaths. Vermont is listed as #39th for gun deaths.. so Vermont is literally more dangerous.
Like I said, it doesn't make sense.
If you look at each states' grading regarding laws in place to curb guns.. there is no rhyme or reason when looking at the laws in place vs. Gun deaths... so why do we keep stating it as such. The data is in!
Vermont (#41) has an "F" Rating while others have an "A" rating and more deaths per capita. It just doesn't hold water.
http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/articles/2015/11/3/these-states-have-the-highest-gun-death-rates-in-america.html
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)The Bronx is a lot different than Westchester.
phazed0
(745 posts)And if we look at the Bronx and we look at Westchester, are we to believe that guns are given away on street corners in the Bronx and not Westchester? That would be silly. The obvious differences between the two is that the Bronx is largely comprised of low-income people and/or the Bronx has been neglected as such for years, producing what we see now. But blame the guns.
The US is not homogenous either, so why are we treating it as such pertaining this issue?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)places with lax gun laws.
phazed0
(745 posts)...concerning interstate commerce.
So what?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)phazed0
(745 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)phazed0
(745 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)it's a composite rating of gun deaths (not murders) and gun laws.
Go ahead and name 11 states that have fewer than 1 gun murder per 100,000 people
The whole basis of this discussion is to "ban guns" and hold manufacturers accountable for gun deaths, regardless of an individuals actions.
I fail to see how this traverses into "get rid of guns", rather, with such a small number as 1 murder per 100,000 it would seem to strengthen my case. 
If you want to look at your own 2010 wiki page it lists Vermont, New Hampshire, Hawaii, North Dakota, Iowa, Maine, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming and Oregon as UNDER 1% - That's 10 states. South Dakota and Minnesota are at an even 1%... that's 12, now what?
branford
(4,462 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)it's an odd duck--an extremely liberal, extremely rural state
96% of gun violence victims in NYC are black or Latino.
Sanders may have trouble making viability threshold in some of the CDs 5-15 here in the city.
branford
(4,462 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 5, 2016, 06:14 PM - Edit history (2)
Tthere are many Democrats and independents across the country who support gun rights, and some voters are not more important than others, even if they agree with you.
More importantly, we don't get to vote in constitutional rights. Whether you like it or not, we have an individual right to keep and bear arms (also recognized in the official Democratic Platform). Do believe any other rights should be up for a vote, maybe abortion, same-sex marriage, free speech, etc.? I'm certain many areas of the country would be quick to institute bans on these cherished liberal achievement, and would accomplish it with sizable democratic majorities.
Lastly, since you claim to know "how product liability works," as an actual litigation attorney, I would be most interested in your articulation of how the manufacturers and dealers in the Sandy Hook lawsuit would be liable under prevailing product liability jurisprudence, no less concerning a constitutionally protected product that fully complied with Connecticut's own long-standing "assault weapon's" ban" and only procured by killing the owner, Lanza's mother?
Notably, these types of lawsuits were already considered frivolous many years ago, and were largely, and often quite openly, designed to bankrupt the manufacturers with legal fees rather than meritorious legal arguments. This bad faith strategy and abuse of the courts is what ultimately provided the necessary political support for the PLCAA, which still permits lawsuits when there are actual defects in a firearm. The PLCAA is also hardly unique. Congress provided similar protections for comparable reasons to vaccine and airplane part manufacturers.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)How does the Sandy Hook lawsuit look, vs what it would look like absent the PLCCA are two different things. Lawyers plead cases by the available law. Having the PLCCA in place changes how the causes of action get characterized.
The idea that the right to own a weapon is the same as abortion is not a popular one amongst liberals, certainly not in New York City.
I would be tickled beyond belief if Senator Sanders were to make the argument you are making with Secretary Clinton in 9 days.
branford
(4,462 posts)and a litigation attorney practicing in NY and NJ, your characterization of what is or is not always universally popular among Democrats here is quite debatable, and far more importantly, largely immaterial to the legal issues involved. Abortion and the individual right to keep and bear arms are both constitutional rights, and except for the legal and regulatory margins, are not subject to the democratic process absent constitutional amendments. This is a circumstance that thankfully almost always favors progressive forces and causes.
The Sandy Hook-type lawsuits, many with facts far better than the case at issue, were legal failures well before the PLCAA was ever conceived. The federal statue was only proposed and garnered sufficient legislative support because such lawsuits were so abusive.
Comparable product liability matters like attempting to sue car manufacturers for drunk drivers or when cars are used in a crime are considered so ridiculous that it's just never done. Such common and practical sense is lacking in the gun control debate because gun control proponents cannot successfully advance their wishes in Congress or most state legislatures and are desperate. This doesn't change the nature of product liability jurisprudence The PLCAA simply ensures that fewer legal fees will be expended and that innocent companies aren't harassed with meritless claims. Notably, some states with PLCAA analogs such as Colorado go even further than the federal statute and permit the recovery of legal fees by the defendant.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)So which gun manufacturer has failed to develop safety features that adhere to the Federal guidelines?
Compliance with regulation is not a defense to a product liability action. It can be evidence, but evidence and proof are two different things. A court can decide that an entire industry's adherence to a given regulation is insufficient.
Dealers are not manufacturers. Surely you don't think that distributors should be held liable for manufacturer's mistakes, right?
I'm not sure where you got your law degree. Try this on for size:
https://hbr.org/1987/09/product-liability-youre-more-exposed-than-you-think
Retailers too can be held responsible for selling defective goods. Macrose Lumber & Trim Company sold Paul Schwartz a box of masonry nails that proved too brittle: the very first one he hammered shattered, sending splinters into his right eye. A New York State court sided with the plaintiff. Schwartz collected from Macrose, and it was the retailer’s problem to collect what it could from the wholesaler and manufacturer.
Yes, the retailer of a defective product can be held liable. What happens in that situation is that the retailer then goes after the distributor, who then goes after the manufacturer.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)isn't strict liability a thing for unreasonably dangerous items?
Wild animals and explosives come to mind.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I got hired to do some patent search work by a personal injury firm that was pursuing an argument to the effect of "there are X patents for a way to make (I think it was some auto part) safer" - basically to show that the state of the art in that technology was well beyond the product as manufactured.
That's why the gun industry goes nuts over various user-interlocks and threatens dealers who sell guns so-equipped. They know darn well that if enough interlock-equipped guns were out there, then anyone shot by a stolen gun would have a claim.
The behavior of the gun industry in actively discouraging the sale of safer guns is interesting. None of the interlocutors here are either aware of it, or understand why the gun industry does that.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)phazed0
(745 posts)You may be a gee-wiz law man, but you somehow missed the entire point of the thread. Book smart and not street smart?
You quote all that but then fail to say how or when gun manufacturers made a defective product. So, much adu about nothing.
Try this on for size.. do you believe car manufacturers should have been held liable for death involving cars without seat belts? Law dictated that seat belts be added to all cars as a Federal Guideline (Like safety's for guns). It is up to the manufacturer to provide a working restraint system.
I implore everyone to read the prior posted link by jberryhill, https://hbr.org/1987/09/product-liability-youre-more-exposed-than-you-think in which there are many stories that would bode well for guns, not just the cherry-picked 1987 case of brittle nails, Schwartz and Macrose.
So above, for guns would be, "Guns are dangerous.. gun didn't fail/not defective."
In Distribution Channels
You cannot determine who will ultimately use your product, but you can protect yourself by advising those who distribute it to try to limit purchases to consumers you’re aiming at. If you know your distributors are selling your product to people who shouldn’t have it and you do nothing about it, you’ll probably be liable in any litigation. Warn unwanted users that your product isn’t intended for them.
So, when you choose to read the whole page, quite a different story emerges, Mr. Lawyer... like the topic you missed earlier in this OP.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Laws exist today to do what you are suggesting. This law singled out the gun industry to be held to a standard that no other industry is held to. If you feel " they distribute or market them (guns) recklessly, or if they fail to develop safety features," sue them now just like you can sue anyone that is negligent.
dchill
(42,660 posts)for any reason, you can't have lawsuits against manufacturers because of how their products are used. Is Glock going to sell to police departments if every victim of a renegade cop sues them?
I hate guns, and most of the reasons people use to justify owning them, but their existence is a necessary evil.
wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)gun manufactures should be should liable. If not, no,they should not be liable.
Just like auto manufacturers.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Slam-fires, firing out of battery, safeties that don't work, etc, are all examples of a product defect that can still result in suing the manufacturer.
Likewise, if a dealer kept a known defective firearm on the shelf, like the Vektor CP-1 that you see in lots of Hollywood movies like the Hunger Games, and Battlestar Galactica, they could probably be sued as well, if someone then bought that firearm, well years after the manufacturer issued a recall, and someone was injured or died as a result when it fired for no damn reason at all.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)murdered children to score cheap political points. Bernie is , again, 100% correct on this.
wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)they would use anyone for a few points.Nasty to the core.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Nothing is too sacred if it can potentially be used to score points against progressives.
angstlessk
(11,862 posts)you shoot at someone/thing and the gun misfires and kills/harms the shooter...if it works as advertised and kills the person/animal...all is good!
wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Sue Hillary for murdering a million people in the Middle East or do those lives not matter?
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)I supported him early last year until I learned of this.
Everything I've learned since has just reinforced that decision.
Response to still_one (Original post)
LynnTTT This message was self-deleted by its author.
LynnTTT
(363 posts)As long as the manufacture and sale of these weapons are legal, I don't believe in making the manufacturer liable for the use . The weapons didn't malfunction, it performed exactly as it's supposed too.
Otherwise, we're on that slippery slope that led to "the Twinkie Defense", the MCDonald's "this coffee is too hot" incidents, and other frivolous lawsuits.
Maybe auto manufacturers should be liable if someone goes 90 miles an hour, crashes and dies. Should cars go faster than the legal limit in any state?
TexasBushwhacker
(21,204 posts)Just sayin
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)If you buy a car and decide to run over people, is the auto maker liable for murder? Or you buy a kitchen knife and stab someone, or a rope and hang someone with it, or a bottle of Clorox used to blind someone.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I hope the News trashes him for this on their front page.
wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)people living in communities hit especially hard by gun violence in New York City.
Please canvass the area for Bernie with that attitude.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)phazed0
(745 posts)They have an education program that has helped slightly (1.8% drop in shootings; $12.1mil program). But where is the program for the large numbers of people in poverty in New York that overwhelmingly leads to criminal youth and crime-ridden areas? When do we start addressing the social issues that lead to the thought process of "Kill with gun."?
We see how well prohibition works vs. social education/wellness programs... so why this time do some choose the path that consistently fails?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)It's not an either/or thing.
Fairness to the gun industry is not a big concern in those neighborhoods.
Sanders will benefit from being more pro-gun in the Republican upstate area though.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)
logosoco
(3,211 posts)If I was on the jury, how could they convince me this is the fault of the gun manufacturer? Can all the parents who left their guns within the reach of their kids and the kids shot someone...could they then sue the gun maker?
I am always hoping for any solution to the gun problem in this country, this does not seem like a good angle. Later in the article, Bernie says he would vote for an automatic weapon ban. That seems more like the way law makers should go.
I would love to see Congress put the muscle on gun makers to have more safety devices, but I don't see how that would even help in this case. As far as i recall, the mother of the shooter at Sandy Hook legally owned the weapons.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)if a child obtains a gun that is owned by or registered to them.
The first couple of convictions would make a lot of adults more cautious about owning guns.
There is no reason to have a gun in the house if you live in a city with an effective police force and if you have good neighbors. Utterly no reason. If you have it for sport, store it somewhere other than in your house. A gun in the house is likely to be used against its owner or a member of its owner's family in my view.
logosoco
(3,211 posts)It seems like parents have gotten in trouble for having pot in a house with kids, but it seems like the stories where a kid gets their hands on a gun it's always seems to be "no charges filed".
riversedge
(80,812 posts)mac56
(17,821 posts)No one else thinks so.
mainstreetonce
(4,178 posts)why I have major problems with Bernie...guns and a conscientious objector as CIC
Sorry...Go Hillary!
that is some cognitive dissonance going on.
You don't like Sanders because of guns. But you don't want him as CIC because he is a man of peace?!
djean111
(14,255 posts)If manufacturers were responsible for how the guns were used, they would be forced to keep tabs on, well, everybody, and since no one can predict, say, kids breaking into their parents' gun cases and stealing guns, or just plain stealing guns, it would soon not be economically feasible to manufacture guns. Or there would soon be so many loopholes in that legislation that it would be worthless. For starters, guns are used, by Americans, to kill other people all over the world. The police use guns to kill people. That, IMO, is just a short step to saying only the police and the MIC can have guns.
If the objective is to stop gun manufacturing, just fucking come right out and fucking SAY IT, instead of pretending that making the manufacturers liable will fix anything.
Oh, and none of this could ever persuade me to support a candidate who laughs at war and death, and is a Third Way Neocon hawk.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)We don't make liquor manufacturers liable for deaths due to drunk driving, so why should we make gun manufacturers liable for deaths due to the misuse of guns.
Now if a person dies of a disease directly caused by excessive alcohol consumption, then maybe the liquor manufacturer could be found liable.
But there has to be some direct relationship, some wrongful or illegal action that connects the acts of the manufacturer of a gun and the injury for which it is being sued.
If something is wrong with the gun, if it was manufactured so as to shoot someone because of a defect in the gun, then maybe liability would be possible. But that does not happen.
This deal about making gun manufacturers liable is just a catchy slogan that appeals to people who don't know what they are talking about or who want a cheap political point. It doesn't make any sense in our legal system.
While I am at it, I would favor requiring that each gun owner carry an insurance policy that would cover any the costs of damages caused by that gun whether intentionally or negligently inflicted. That would be far more effective in discouraging the intentional or negligent use of a gun to cause injuries and death to people.
alp227
(33,283 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I'll change my post. Thanks.
lastone
(588 posts)Has endorsed HRC, so he's doing their bidding, spewing utter bullshit so others wont have to, fuck him.
saturnsring
(1,832 posts)he's an enabler
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)manufacture safer guns if that is the issue.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)companies that produced the alcohol that caused the driver to be drunk?
This is a question of who is legally responsible for injuries.
I strongly agree with Bernie on this. Manufacturing guns is legal. If we want to make it illegal then let's see how the Supreme Court deals with that law.
But it's legal to produce guns.
If the manufacturer irresponsibly and illegally sells guns to people who by law are not allowed to buy or have them, then that manufacturer should be liable because it has committed a wrong.
But the manufacturer of a gun is too remote from the misuse of the gun to shoot a person to be able to impose liability on the manufacturer in my opinion.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)thinking that the idiocy he's peddling disqualifies BS from the high office disqualifies him from the one he holds
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)
INdemo
(7,024 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)I don't think folks should be able to sue gun manufacturers unless the product malfunctioned.
Same with cars.
The victims have every right to sue the person responsible for the crime, but I don't think they should be able to sue the manufacturer.
If a person driving a car kill someone, the victim (s) should be able to sue the person driving.
The manufacturer should only be sued if the car malfunctioned due to product error.
Same with guns, or any other product.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Firearms manufacturers may be sued if they make a faulty product, one that blows up in the owner's face, shoots bullets out the wrong end, etc. They may not be sued for making a product that works as it was intended to work. If people are unhappy with this, they should work to make firearms illegal. If Sen. Murphy wants to outlaw firearms... well, he is a senator. That seems like a good starting place.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)convinced of his intellectual authority in any way. He claimed he'd missed a payment or two, but it was much more than that then there was a loan from his former employer who then benefited greatly from actions Murphy took and Murphy claims there is no connection between his sweetheart deal and the boon to his sweetheart dealer and he swears up and down that this is the case. Got what no one else gets, handed out rewards. Claims to judge others.
I agree with Bernie. Chris seems to be suggesting that many of us are not welcome in this Party. Chris who makes deals says this.
Fuck that corrupt so and so.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)I agree with him 100%.
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)Bernie's vote for the PLCAA giving gun manufacturers special immunities is unforgiveable. And despite his earlier flip flopping on the PLCAA, saying he will "reconsider" what should be done about the law, he is clearly still in support of gun manufacturer immunity.
Disgusting.
Native
(7,359 posts)or they are simply trolls working for Revolution Messaging who were in middle school back in '05 when it all went down.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)You can't single out one industry for special treatment just because you don't like the product it manufactures. If the gun malfunctions and someone gets hurt or killed, fine, but a gun manufacturer can't be held liable for someone else's criminal use of its product.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)tobacco doesn't. Apples and oranges.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)are responsible for determining into whose hands the weapons go.
I will admit I'm not clear on chain of custody. Who is the middleman between manufacturers and military/police or between manufacturers and gun store owners who then sell to civilians?
Native
(7,359 posts)Bernie's response in the NY Daily News interview seems to be in contradiction to what he said in January. The current law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which Bernie helped pass in '05, gives the gun industry IMMUNITY. The same law that Bernie said (in January) he would co-sponsor legislation to repeal.
No other industry has this kind of immunity. There is no law that prevents someone from trying to sue a car manufacturer for any reason whatsoever. The courts decide whether the lawsuit is reasonable or not, not the collective wisdom of DU. As one commenter to the article said, "Obviously someone trying to sue a car manufacturer for the behavior of a drunk driver is not reasonable and would not get anywhere. However, a car manufacturer might be sued if they knowingly colluded to prevent safety features that were available and known to save lives from being used in cars and something happens where it is obvious that safety feature would have saved lives. Right now no one can sue a gun manufacturer for this type of behavior. That is what the real problem is. NO corporation or industry should have that kind of protection."
This is what Senator Murphy means when he says, "Democrats cannot nominate a candidate who believes that toy gun makers should be held to a higher legal standard than real gun makers."
This article from Think Progress http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/01/28/3743802/bernie-sanders-plcaa/
outlines Bernie's positions on gun control and helps to clarify what this is all about.
Blasphemer
(3,623 posts)You have clearly outlined the real issue in an unbiased fashion and provided information that will help me to critically examine what this means in light of the current primary battle. One unfortunate thing about this highly charged primary season is that productive discussions that need to be had are not happening - in a different environment, I hope we can have those discussions!
LiberalFighter
(53,544 posts)if they don't do due diligence doing a background check.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)than suing the manufacturers.
branford
(4,462 posts)Licensed gun dealers are already required under federal law to run background checks on prospective purchasers. Similarly, knowingly engaging in a straw purchase is already illegal.
If the government approves a purchase, are you suggesting that a FFL must take additional steps, and if so, under what objective and clear criteria?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)...then they bear some responsibility.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)jalan48
(14,914 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)should be accountable when someone gets stabbed or a car manufacturer when a pedestrian is hit by a car? No!
corbettkroehler
(1,898 posts)Murphy is a superb representative of his state. If I were in his shoes, I would respond to the Sandy Hook massacre with my last ounce of strength. On the issue of Sanders' qualifications, however, he is wrong. Sanders supports gun control and mental health care. Are there differences with Clinton? Sure. Was Sanders wrong to vote against the Brady Bill? Yes. Is he qualified to be president? Also, yes.
Loki
(3,830 posts)is negated by the fact that he voted to fund them.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/27/bernie-sanders-savior-or-seducer-of-the-anti-war-left/
JULY 27, 2015
Bernie Sanders: Savior or Seducer of the Anti-War Left?
by HOWARD LISNOFF
And here is where Sanders greatest equivocation has come. In spite of claims of being antiwar, his “hawkish” support of Clinton’s military actions in the 1999 Kosovo War caused one of his advisers to quit. When antiwar activists occupied Sanders’ office in 1999 because of that support of Clinton’s war policies, he had them arrested.
In 2001, Sanders did not support the vote in Congress to oppose the war in Afghanistan. Congresswoman Barbara Lee stood alone! This vote was followed by his support for appropriations to support both the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. In 2003 he supported the resolution that gave support to George W. Bush in both Iraq and in the larger war against terrorism, although Sanders has been a critic of the Iraq War.
Guess this doesn't count?
mckara
(1,708 posts)Was Hillary absent the day they taught law at Yale Law School? Possibly, she's blowing smoke up her most gullible supporters posteriors?
What's America's greatest export? Military hardware? Let's make it possibly for every terrorist and rogue dictator to sue American weapons manufacturers! These people are brilliant!
Native
(7,359 posts)mckara
(1,708 posts)Between a firearms dealer and a Hellfire missile manufacturer, after a drone strike kills innocent people, or victims of drug cartel violence who legally bought weapons in the United States and returned to Mexico?
spin
(17,493 posts)of their products is simply to drive them out of business.
If you are a strong gun control advocate who would love to see gun bans and confiscations this sounds like a great idea and a great good step to passing gun laws in our nation such as exist in Great Britain.
If you use firearms for hunting, sport or for home and self defense you will see this as a terrible idea.
Of course even if the gun manufacturers stopped producing firearms tomorrow there would still be more firearms in our nation than people. With reasonable care these firearms will still function perfectly one hundred years from now and so will the ammo if it is stored properly in cool dry environment.
Sir Lurksalot
(12 posts)Right off the bat, when it came to the central message of Sanders’ campaign– that Wall Street should be prosecuted for their role in the 2008 financial collapse– he couldn’t even say what laws they were supposed to have broken, saying he only “suspected” and “believed” they broke the law.
Sanders: I suspect that there are. Yes.
Daily News: You believe that? But do you know?
Sanders: I believe that that is the case. Do I have them in front of me, now, legal statutes? No, I don’t. But if I would…yeah, that’s what I believe, yes.
When pressed further on the topic, Sanders sounded downright Trumpian, repeating the word “fraudulent” ad nauseum but giving little insight into the actual law.
Sanders: What kind of fraudulent activity? Fraudulent activity that brought this country into the worst economic decline in its history by selling packages of fraudulent, fraudulent, worthless subprime mortgages. How’s that for a start?
ConsiderThis_2016
(274 posts)... Parents caught up in playing addictive computer game and fail to care for their child. Dell computer being sued along with Micro Soft... the operating system Manufacture....
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)The activists demanding this have jumped the shark, and are using this tragedy to make people scared of criticizing a frankly idiotic proposal.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)she's bought and paid for?
deathrind
(1,786 posts)Gun manufacturers responsible/liable when their product is used to kill even just one person would certainly be nice but I have to agree with Bernie on this. It is the only logical conclusion.
Being able to sue Budweiser or Ford because a person drank their beer and then drove a Ford car causing an accident that killed a friend would be nice also... but equally illogical.
Earth_First
(14,910 posts)So as far as attempting a hit piece on Sanders, this amounts to a bunch of nothing, really.