General Discussion

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)

57. "Safety review." It's called proofing. Been done for many decades...

Wed Dec 9, 2015, 03:38 PM

Dec 2015

If a gun has a failure when used as directed, the manufacturer is as liable as anyone else. See: Remington 700 recall, Winchester ammo recalls, etc.

I think what some people want is a system of government bureaus which will set convoluted "Safety®" standards and performance characteristic so that they can delay, obfuscate, and load up a huge ban/confiscation effort based on an ever-expanding definition of technical safety standards.

Frankly, firearms are more reliable and safer than ever before. The courts know this. And they know subterfuge. Please review the several court cases where arms manufacturers were sued by prohibitionists for Other than safety of the arm. It's a one-sided result. That's why the rejected legislation was proposed:

It was designed to put firearms manufacturers IN a UNIQUE STATUS, not to exempt them from normal product liability.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

140 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

It�s time to repeal the gun industry�s exceptional legal immunity [View all] LuckyTheDog Dec 2015 OP

Since no "exceptional legal immunity" exists, that is an easy one... pipoman Dec 2015 #1

Read the article... LuckyTheDog Dec 2015 #2

They had unprecedented frivolous law suits filed by pipoman Dec 2015 #6

Gun manufacturers could do more to police gun dealers LuckyTheDog Dec 2015 #10

They can be sued for those practices, GGJohn Dec 2015 #13

How, specifically? Lizzie Poppet Dec 2015 #26

That is not their job pipoman Dec 2015 #27

true. gun manufacturers only job is to make money through the death of other people patsimp Dec 2015 #31

You don't have to like it... pipoman Dec 2015 #62

remember that when an impartial Supreme Court in the future gets rid of the bogus interpretation patsimp Dec 2015 #65

That will happen on the same time frame as Roe being overturned pipoman Dec 2015 #66

The individual rights interpretation of the 2A is not the primary issue facing gun controllers. branford Dec 2015 #89

dealers have been sued and lost Duckhunter935 Dec 2015 #44

Straw purchases are a Federal crime Lee-Lee Dec 2015 #111

they had to defend against Duckhunter935 Dec 2015 #43

Sure they do, read more about it. Nt Logical Dec 2015 #16

I have, those who state otherwise simply haven't a clue what they are talking about. pipoman Dec 2015 #28

A mass murder (4 dead) was committed in Austin in 2013.... Eleanors38 Dec 2015 #50

But there are special laws for gun companies only! Nt Logical Dec 2015 #60

Gun companies are in the same legal category as Cars and TVs. Correct? Eleanors38 Dec 2015 #61

Lol, all i said is that they pass a special law for gun companies! How is that.... Logical Dec 2015 #64

Silly. The only think "special" was the controllers' attempt to make a special law... Eleanors38 Dec 2015 #81

You really crack me up at times. nt Logical Dec 2015 #83

Glad to be of soivice! Eleanors38 Dec 2015 #88

Inly because George Soros and Mike Bloomberg pipoman Dec 2015 #63

There are special laws for firearm manufacturers branford Dec 2015 #90

Gun manufacturers can be sued if they break the law or sell defective products hack89 Dec 2015 #3

Other products are subject to safety review Orrex Dec 2015 #5

Really? hack89 Dec 2015 #8

Yes you can, there is a special law in place for gun companies. Nt Logical Dec 2015 #17

It is what happens when you overreach hack89 Dec 2015 #18

overreach is what the nra has done with the 2nd amendment patsimp Dec 2015 #32

The 2A allows for the strict regulation of guns hack89 Dec 2015 #38

my failures? - aren't we being a bit personal? Like me saying that you failed because of the people patsimp Dec 2015 #47

Ok. The failure of gun control groups. nt hack89 Dec 2015 #48

Really? GGJohn Dec 2015 #19

Of course I made no such claim to that end. Orrex Dec 2015 #21

If people started a concerted campaign to sue brewers out of existence hack89 Dec 2015 #29

I know that you want the conversation to be about alcohol, but it's not Orrex Dec 2015 #37

The first part of my post explained why the law came about hack89 Dec 2015 #39

Another weak attempt at metaphor by a gun apologist Orrex Dec 2015 #40

The alcohol part was in direct response to your question about alcohol and suicide. nt hack89 Dec 2015 #41

Which, in turn, was a direct response to your claim about alcohol safety Orrex Dec 2015 #54

Do you want me to answer direct questions from you or not? hack89 Dec 2015 #58

so are firearms manufacturers Duckhunter935 Dec 2015 #45

Show me the largescale study about gun safety and the factors contributing to gun violence Orrex Dec 2015 #55

"Safety review." It's called proofing. Been done for many decades... Eleanors38 Dec 2015 #57

Gun makers are sued for defective products regularly krispos42 Dec 2015 #59

Why shouldn't company that advertises like this be open to suit when one of its customers murders Hoyt Dec 2015 #4

You've got it all wrong Orrex Dec 2015 #7

Are any of those ads advocating for the criminal misuse of those products Hoyt? GGJohn Dec 2015 #14

would the nra ever let them be illegal patsimp Dec 2015 #34

The marketeers sure know what gets you excited. Hoyt Dec 2015 #53

Sex and violence sells everything from automobiles to hygiene products. branford Dec 2015 #91

Yep, I'm a bigot when it comes to people who walk around with guns like George Zman. Hoyt Dec 2015 #93

Sigh... branford Dec 2015 #105

A typical gunner who straps one on to go to the store. A racist too, Hoyt Dec 2015 #106

No. branford Dec 2015 #107

Because none of those ads come close to inciting violence aikoaiko Dec 2015 #24

BS. They encourage people to train as snipers, urban warriors, tough guys, arm up, etc. Hoyt Dec 2015 #52

LOL. GGJohn Dec 2015 #67

GG, they use folks with a lot of guns, like you, as the model for their ads. They know their Hoyt Dec 2015 #68

Hoyt, if you had paid attention instead of constantly belittling firearm owners, GGJohn Dec 2015 #69

Robbers do more to encourage gun ownership among victims than any ads Lee-Lee Dec 2015 #112

I didn't "admit" to being a robber, I was responding to someone who probably took your course Hoyt Dec 2015 #114

My classes are pretty fun as well as educational Lee-Lee Dec 2015 #115

I know what you teach, the same stuff Zman used to get off. That's what most Hoyt Dec 2015 #124

So IOW, you lied about being a former robber. eom. GGJohn Dec 2015 #117

Didn't lie, you are just too obtuse to get it. In fact, I did not think you were even Hoyt Dec 2015 #126

That links been posted several times recently, GGJohn Dec 2015 #134

Glad you hang on my every word. Learn to read without pointing at each word. Hoyt Dec 2015 #136

C'mon Hoyt, which statement is not true? eom. GGJohn Dec 2015 #138

So just exactly what are you trying to prove with these pictures? GGJohn Dec 2015 #118

Shooting silhouette targets that resemble humans is training to kill, period. Hoyt Dec 2015 #125

I use targets that are just a circle TeddyR Dec 2015 #132

If it represents center mass, and you tote. Or one fancies themselves a sniper. Hoyt Dec 2015 #133

Assuming your perception is accurate (and it's not), branford Dec 2015 #92

Greed, hatred, waving confederate flag are not illegal, doesn't mean those things are right/moral. Hoyt Dec 2015 #94

People have the absolute right hold bigoted, horrible or otherwise terrible beliefs. branford Dec 2015 #104

"In the USA, we do not lose rights because we hold unpopular or loathsome opinions." beevul Dec 2015 #123

I disagree DashOneBravo Dec 2015 #103

you are right patsimp Dec 2015 #33

It's not the guns. The US has a gun-culture problem. DetlefK Dec 2015 #9

Switzerland also does nothing to have a drug or gang problem. yeoman6987 Dec 2015 #11

In Switzerland, you can have the gun at home... LuckyTheDog Dec 2015 #12

I don't know if the policy has changed 1939 Dec 2015 #78

No it was put in place for a reason....it stopped the lawsuit lottery. ileus Dec 2015 #15

Who should be sued for the attack in San Bernardino and why? frylock Dec 2015 #20

I never suggested any specific lawsuits LuckyTheDog Dec 2015 #23

I thought this discussion was about PLCAA? frylock Dec 2015 #25

It is. LuckyTheDog Dec 2015 #71

Why doesn't the ATF do it's job and shut down sleazy dealers? hack89 Dec 2015 #73

The legal and ethical principle of "know your client" is a long-standing one. LuckyTheDog Dec 2015 #74

So gun manufacturers have access to data about straw purchases? hack89 Dec 2015 #75

I am saying they should know who they are selling to... LuckyTheDog Dec 2015 #76

So how do they determine who are sleazy dealers? hack89 Dec 2015 #77

They determine who is sleazy by knowing who they are and what their business practices are LuckyTheDog Dec 2015 #79

So they have to do what the ATF is doing right now? hack89 Dec 2015 #80

Extra-legal? LuckyTheDog Dec 2015 #84

So what is wrong with an "obey all local, state and federal laws relating to gun sales" standard? hack89 Dec 2015 #85

If they are breaking the law and the gun manufacturer knows it... LuckyTheDog Dec 2015 #86

No shit - the "red flag" is criminal activity hack89 Dec 2015 #87

Now you are accusing me of having a hidden agenda? LuckyTheDog Dec 2015 #110

No - it's very open hack89 Dec 2015 #121

LOL. LuckyTheDog Dec 2015 #129

Ok. Nt hack89 Dec 2015 #130

Jezuz, I just read this ridiculous combination of words pipoman Dec 2015 #108

Why do gun zealots always go for the personal attacks? LuckyTheDog Dec 2015 #109

*snort* sarisataka Dec 2015 #120

"They could have personnel visit the shops periodically" EX500rider Dec 2015 #122

There are strong laws in place and a whole Federal agency whose job it is to do that Lee-Lee Dec 2015 #113

I have not given BATFE "a pass" on anything. LuckyTheDog Dec 2015 #116

By ignoring them and placing responsibility elsewhere you are giving them a pass Lee-Lee Dec 2015 #119

Nope. LuckyTheDog Dec 2015 #128

" It�s time to repeal the gun industry�s exceptional legal immunity" EL34x4 Dec 2015 #22

absolutely. that is vital +10000000 patsimp Dec 2015 #30

It became necessary. If you have a problem with it, blame those who made it so. N/T beevul Dec 2015 #35

Im not so sure its exceptional Travis_0004 Dec 2015 #36

They don't have no exceptional immunity. People just can't sue them if somebody Waldorf Dec 2015 #42

The photo in the OP is completely appropriate for the article... beevul Dec 2015 #46

And a floating stovepipe as well! Eleanors38 Dec 2015 #82

yes yes yes NCTraveler Dec 2015 #49

And if it should get repealed sarisataka Dec 2015 #51

Nope, the PLCAA is good law. aikoaiko Dec 2015 #56

Good luck with that. X_Digger Dec 2015 #70

Not even close. But thanks for the NRA talking point. LuckyTheDog Dec 2015 #72

But Seagrams makes a product that is capable of impairing your judgement!! X_Digger Dec 2015 #95

But nobody is saying that gun makers... LuckyTheDog Dec 2015 #97

Read your own link.. the passage I quoted, fer crissakes! X_Digger Dec 2015 #98

But that's exactly what was happening pre PLCAA. GGJohn Dec 2015 #100

That's exactly the same analogy, GGJohn Dec 2015 #96

Perhaps Sen. Sanders could introduce the Bill? brooklynite Dec 2015 #99

K&R smirkymonkey Dec 2015 #101

. libodem Dec 2015 #102

KISS clif Dec 2015 #127

repeal it and sue every time a manufacturer's product is used to murder someone mwrguy Dec 2015 #131

repeal it and sue every time a manufacturer's product is used to murder someone virginia mountainman Dec 2015 #137

And *this* is exactly why the law was passed in the first place. X_Digger Dec 2015 #139

Yep: it's an anti-democratic tactic. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2015 #140

I think not. It was put in place to prevent anti-RKBA groups from trying to financially hurt... aikoaiko Dec 2015 #135