Latest Breaking News

branford

(4,462 posts)

89. Again, no. Just because a jury renders a verdict, does not make it sacrosanct or meritorious.

Fri Oct 16, 2015, 05:28 PM

Oct 2015

That is precisely why we have various courts of appeal, the forum where pre-PLCAA firearm lawsuits went to quietly die, at least those that weren't lost on a motion to dismiss or summary judgment, and therefore never went to a jury, or were otherwise settled to avoid legal expenses.

Your understanding of juries is demonstrably flawed even with respect to criminal matters, no less civil concerns.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

123 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sanders takes heat from gun control group ahead of debate [View all] riversedge Oct 2015 OP

I hope they ask that mainstreetonce Oct 2015 #1

Have anything nice to say about your candidate? Dawgs Oct 2015 #2

oh you don't like the poll numbers?? shucky darns. riversedge Oct 2015 #5

I forget. You also like to act like a child. Dawgs Oct 2015 #9

good deal. bye riversedge Oct 2015 #14

Does "saying nice things about" someone win the election? Orrex Oct 2015 #15

alert results irisblue Oct 2015 #22

Sanders can handle this. His response last weekend to the same question made perfect sense. PSPS Oct 2015 #3

Im sure he will flip flop soon Keep-Left Oct 2015 #4

Hillary has flip-flopped on guns thesquanderer Oct 2015 #38

Nobody's perfect lark Oct 2015 #6

I actually wish he were more of a 2nd Amendment advocate. appal_jack Oct 2015 #11

Totally agree lark Oct 2015 #12

Why did he vote that way? Elmer S. E. Dump Oct 2015 #7

No, a manufacturer of a legal product is still responsible for injuries caused by negligent design. SunSeeker Oct 2015 #20

You don't understand the actual legal issues concerning a negligent design claim, branford Oct 2015 #23

Yes I do understand the law. SunSeeker Oct 2015 #30

It was actually designed to accept the magazines sold by the manufacturer. beevul Oct 2015 #32

beevul highlighted a key component of your misunderstanding. branford Oct 2015 #39

I responded to beevul, see post 42. I have no "misunderstanding." SunSeeker Oct 2015 #43

Juries do not decide issues of law, only fact under relevant common law and statutory instructions. branford Oct 2015 #49

No, the issue of causation is a question of fact for the jury. SunSeeker Oct 2015 #53

Laws against SLAPP-type suits are inconsistent and not always available. branford Oct 2015 #56

Please cite a jurisdiction that does not have adequate anti-SLAPP laws available to litigants. nt SunSeeker Oct 2015 #58

Wikipedia is your friend. branford Oct 2015 #60

Then why didn't the NRA push for a federal anti-SLAPP law instead of the PLCAA? SunSeeker Oct 2015 #61

The NRA-ILA is a one issue lobbying organization. branford Oct 2015 #63

But the PLCAA is not an anti-SLAPP statute. It is an immunity statute. SunSeeker Oct 2015 #66

SLAAP references are generally just meant as laws to disincentivize frivolous lawsuits. branford Oct 2015 #74

If these lawsuits would win but for the PLCAA, then they are not frivolous SLAPP suits. SunSeeker Oct 2015 #76

Let me state this yet again, you do not understand legal civil procedure or products liability law, branford Oct 2015 #81

Bringing meritorious product liability cases is not an "abuse" of our legal system. SunSeeker Oct 2015 #83

"Meritorious" is not defined by what you believe is right. branford Oct 2015 #85

I didn't say it was. Meritorious is what a jury determines, not the NRA. SunSeeker Oct 2015 #87

Again, no. Just because a jury renders a verdict, does not make it sacrosanct or meritorious. branford Oct 2015 #89

If all of these cases "died," the NRA would have had no need for PLCAA immunity. nt SunSeeker Oct 2015 #90

Read my post again. branford Oct 2015 #93

The lawsuits were designed to recover damages. SunSeeker Oct 2015 #99

The was no wave of bankruptcies, but not for lack of trying. branford Oct 2015 #108

The PLCAA is like voter ID laws, a solution in search of a problem. nt SunSeeker Oct 2015 #109

Read the Congressional testimony and the innumerable news articles branford Oct 2015 #111

The "majority of Americans" did not stop such lawsuits in their tracks. SunSeeker Oct 2015 #117

We live in a democratic republic. branford Oct 2015 #118

Our democratic republic often does not work the way it is supposed to. SunSeeker Oct 2015 #123

It was based on the M-16, which was designed for 20-rd magazines NickB79 Oct 2015 #48

I don't have it "backwards." The AR-15 was designed to take large magazines, as you note. SunSeeker Oct 2015 #54

Every single gun ever made could take a large capacity magazine Travis_0004 Oct 2015 #102

All the more reason you should be held responsible for your product. nt SunSeeker Oct 2015 #104

By that logic, if I make a flame thrower, can we sue blue rhino for selling me a propane tank Travis_0004 Oct 2015 #105

An otherwise safe propane tank is a reasonable with reasonable uses. SunSeeker Oct 2015 #106

Then pass a law and make it illegal Travis_0004 Oct 2015 #107

We have perfectly good product liability laws already on the books. SunSeeker Oct 2015 #110

You need to speak with an actual litigation attorney (as you clearly do not trust me at all). branford Oct 2015 #112

The victims' lawsuits were actual, legitimate, recognized product liability claims. SunSeeker Oct 2015 #115

Just because you assert a claim, does not make it meritorious. branford Oct 2015 #119

If motions to dismiss or demurrers in these cases are "exceedingly difficult to win"... SunSeeker Oct 2015 #121

Sunseeker, if you are going to state something as fact, your argument would be stronger Big_Mike Oct 2015 #69

Selling 30 rounds magazines to civilians is ridiculous. SunSeeker Oct 2015 #71

That is most certainly not the "American Way." branford Oct 2015 #75

Oh please. I understand plenty. Juries are the trier of fact in product cases. SunSeeker Oct 2015 #78

No, you don't understand civil procedure, the limitations on juries, and causation, branford Oct 2015 #82

Yes, I do understand the law. See post 114. SunSeeker Oct 2015 #116

Whatever you think about an AR-15 TeddyR Oct 2015 #29

Cars are legal too. Yet car makers get sued all the time. SunSeeker Oct 2015 #31

Show me a car maker getting sued for someone who misused the car to drive drunk. beevul Oct 2015 #33

Cars are not designed to be driven drunk. ARs are designed for mass killing. SunSeeker Oct 2015 #42

Thats an opinion, and not one well grounded in reality. beevul Oct 2015 #45

I see you resort to insults. Typical. SunSeeker Oct 2015 #46

No, its people who define 56 year old commonplace design rifles as "mass killing equipment"... beevul Oct 2015 #47

Today's AR-15 with a 100-round magazine is mass killing equipment. SunSeeker Oct 2015 #52

Thats your opinion. beevul Oct 2015 #55

Do you think 100-round magazines should be sold to civilians? nt SunSeeker Oct 2015 #59

Until and unless they've been prohibited via due process, yes. N/T beevul Oct 2015 #62

Why? What legitimate use does a civilian have for a 100-round magazine? nt SunSeeker Oct 2015 #64

That question is above your pay grade. N/T beevul Oct 2015 #65

I'm not getting paid for this conversation, are you? nt SunSeeker Oct 2015 #67

Thats why its above your pay grade. beevul Oct 2015 #68

I never said it was up for me to decide. I want a jury to decide. SunSeeker Oct 2015 #70

Its above MY paygrade. beevul Oct 2015 #72

It matters what we think about selling 100-round mags online to civilians. SunSeeker Oct 2015 #73

If you want to ban certain firearms or accessories, branford Oct 2015 #77

Oh good God. So you think banning 100-round magazines is "the definition of tyranny." SunSeeker Oct 2015 #80

No. I simply don't believe that any citizen is required to justify a "need" to the government branford Oct 2015 #84

If there is no need for such a dangerous product, why make it? SunSeeker Oct 2015 #86

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." derby378 Oct 2015 #88

I have no issue with a well regulated state militia having large magazines. SunSeeker Oct 2015 #92

There is no recognized tort of "cravenness." nt branford Oct 2015 #95

That sort of cravenness was culpable before the PLCAA. nt SunSeeker Oct 2015 #97

Here is a lesson is basic economics: branford Oct 2015 #91

I am not disputing the economics of it, but whether that should come with legal responsibility. SunSeeker Oct 2015 #94

Again, you simply don't understand procedural or substantive product liability law, branford Oct 2015 #96

I do understand. I just I disagree with you. nt SunSeeker Oct 2015 #98

I've provided the foundation for my opinion, so I'll ask again, what's yours? branford Oct 2015 #113

Who you are is not a basis. The 2 bases you did provide were factually incorrect. SunSeeker Oct 2015 #114

I'm not "bragging," but offering the basis for my opinion and conclusion. branford Oct 2015 #120

Claiming you are a lawyer is not a basis for a conclusion. SunSeeker Oct 2015 #122

I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion. beevul Oct 2015 #100

They don't jam soon enough. nt SunSeeker Oct 2015 #103

Wouldn't the AR-15 be covered under assault weapon ban? thesquanderer Oct 2015 #37

The AWB expired in 2004. Yet Sanders voted for the PLCAA in 2005. SunSeeker Oct 2015 #40

The Sandy Hook AR pattern rifle Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #101

These weapons are made for the express purpose of murdering people. ncjustice80 Oct 2015 #34

No! If you want accoutability you have to look at the paid for congressmen. Elmer S. E. Dump Oct 2015 #36

I wonder if they will bring up his vote against the economic bailout which prevented a second great still_one Oct 2015 #8

Dems are setting themselves up to lose with the gun control stuff hollowdweller Oct 2015 #10

If Democrats don't stand up to the NRA, no one will oberliner Oct 2015 #13

You mean stand up to voters who don't agree with them on guns but might on other issues hollowdweller Oct 2015 #16

Large Majority Support Stronger Gun Safety Policies Rose Siding Oct 2015 #25

The NRA has about 5 million members out of 80-100+ millions legal firearm owners. branford Oct 2015 #24

Gun control does not alienate all gun owners oberliner Oct 2015 #27

You need to look at the details hack89 Oct 2015 #41

Fair enough oberliner Oct 2015 #50

The Senate is the key obstacle to more gun control hack89 Oct 2015 #51

If you think gun control is just "cultural stuff" that no Democrat should support then maybe you are Fred Sanders Oct 2015 #18

Oh Hell yeah, gotta disarm the victims!! pocoloco Oct 2015 #21

Read the Democratic Platform. branford Oct 2015 #26

You, as an admitted gun banner, are miles farther away from the party platform... beevul Oct 2015 #35

True wisdom here Android3.14 Oct 2015 #19

Should Dems cave on gay marriage as well? (nt) stone space Oct 2015 #28

The author of The Hill article is a biased mole for the conservative evangelicals Android3.14 Oct 2015 #17

I was all for Bernie until this moment last night wordpix Oct 2015 #44

Sanders gets a D- Reter Oct 2015 #57

I think some here forget Howard Dean had an A rating from the NRA. AtomicKitten Oct 2015 #79