2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumCity lawsuits that Sanders voted to prevent had impact on gun makers
The primary city lawsuit claim was based on long-established law: The manufacturers marketing and distribution practices created or contributed to a public nuisance, defined for hundreds of years as an unreasonable interference with public health or safety. Since the claim is solely focused on the marketing and distribution conduct of handgun manufacturers, it did not limit individual rights to buy or possess handguns. It steered clear of the Second Amendment.
Whistleblowers confirmed the obvious: The manufacturers knew their marketing practices made handguns easily available yet did nothing to alleviate the danger and harm. Smith & Wesson, the largest domestic manufacturer, settled, agreeing to change its marketing and distribution practices.
The manufacturers and the National Rifle Association went to Congress and state legislatures seeking protection from the city lawsuits in the form of broadly framed, retroactive legislative immunities. About half of the lawsuits were terminated by state legislative immunities. Of the remaining cases, about half got past the initial stages doing better than the state tobacco lawsuits at comparable stages but were terminated by Congress immunity in 2005.
The result is that gun manufacturers, and only gun manufacturers, are not subject to otherwise available civil legal claims if they knowingly supply crime-prone distribution channels or engage in other conduct covered by the immunity that is usually civilly actionable. This was not tort reform legislation; no other industry, company, or individual is immune.
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/thinktank/City-lawsuits-had-impact-on-gun-makers.html#cITc1AXlyZHfBqh2.99
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)what's the crime?
Federal and state law limits who can buy guns - there is nothing wrong with marketing to that group.
RandySF
(58,832 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)by suing them out of existence. A coordinated campaign to overwhelm and bankrupt them through frivolous law suits.
The law was the political backlash.
RandySF
(58,832 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)They never get it right. They try bold moves like the 1994 AWB and end up giving the NRA these wonderful political gifts that end up actually weakening gun control . This campaign to sue gun manufacturers out of existence is just another example. Gun control will never win until they get competent leadership and a sound political strategy.
HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)postatomic
(1,771 posts)It had nothing to do with marketing.
Someone can put a hot cup of coffee between their legs in a moving car, get burned and then sue and win. But one Aurora family who lost a love one tries to sue the gun manufacturer, case is thrown out because of this bullshit bill, and THEY have to pay $200,000 in legal fees to the Defense.
What a great country we live in.
hack89
(39,171 posts)In accordance with all state and federal laws. Their argument in essence was "somehow you should have known he was crazy ". They had no way to know that - he passed the background checks.
Did you know that the parents work for the Brady Bunch? They knew they had no case - any lawyer would have told them that. They did it as a PR stunt.
postatomic
(1,771 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)That being said, his record overall is much better than Clinton's. I mean, way, way, way better. The IWR, the patriot act, offshore drilling in the Gulf, Libya, etc., etc. Bernie has consistently supported the right things. Clinton has been far worse. Why any DUer would think Clinton has a better record is beyond me.