2016 Postmortem

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)

71. Sanders said he would look at this law again.

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 01:31 PM

Mar 2016

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), enacted in 2005, grants the firearm industry broad immunity from liability. The PLCAA not only prevents most people from receiving compensation for their firearm-related injuries, it erodes litigation’s ability to serve its public health role of providing manufacturers with a financial incentive to make their products safer.

When the viability of the vaccine industry was threatened in the 1980s, Congress provided limited protection from liability and also established the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The liability of nearly all other products, for example motor vehicles, is governed by traditional common law principles.

The absence of both litigation and product safety rules for firearms is a potentially dangerous combination for the public’s health.

From: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2040374/

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

105 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

'Sanders is wrong about the lawsuit we filed after our son�s murder in Newtown' [View all] bigtree Mar 2016 OP

Sanders has been wrong on guns many times in his decades in the establishment.nt LexVegas Mar 2016 #1

Many, many times workinclasszero Mar 2016 #37

No actually he hasn't but why let facts get in the way? beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #74

I am glad they spoke up. Must still be so painful for them. riversedge Mar 2016 #2

No military in the world uses Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #3

That's pretty disingenuous. yallerdawg Mar 2016 #5

I do not duck hunt Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #7

modified into the M-16 bigtree Mar 2016 #11

Not easily Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #13

I was agreeing with you bigtree Mar 2016 #17

I use mine for sporting purposes Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #19

I'd favor target shooting bigtree Mar 2016 #20

Of course personal protection Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #22

that one doesn't register with me bigtree Mar 2016 #25

Hunting is very well what is in its design Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #27

you don't need the AR-15 to hunt bigtree Mar 2016 #33

I do not need many things Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #40

rights aren't absolute bigtree Mar 2016 #45

You would have to ban all semi-automatic rifles Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #52

I'd start with this gun of choice for the recent mass killings bigtree Mar 2016 #60

The AR 15 is not Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #62

The AR-15 was designed for military and police use bigtree Mar 2016 #66

That would be the M16 Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #67

this is the AR-15 rifle which is the subject of debate bigtree Mar 2016 #68

do you know what the difference is? Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #70

They fear the scary looking rifle because it looks scary Press Virginia Mar 2016 #79

They look the same, function differently Press Virginia Mar 2016 #83

okay. bigtree Mar 2016 #87

See how stupid cosmetic Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #90

I am not a fan of guns, but I would think Bernie's Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #47

Following your reasoning on this... Koinos Mar 2016 #84

Well Hillary will evolve Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #91

Just curious. thucythucy Mar 2016 #12

Yep Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #14

The truth is what? yallerdawg Mar 2016 #16

The rifle was not an M16 or modified Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #18

You can buy an AR in a multitude of calibers hack89 Mar 2016 #28

The Clinton-signed Assault Weapons Ban covered AR-15 until the ban expired. yallerdawg Mar 2016 #4

The weapon used was assault weapons ban compliant Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #6

If we ban the sale of AR-15's (AR-style) - yallerdawg Mar 2016 #9

There were no "modifications" TeddyR Mar 2016 #31

Correct Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #41

Bernie always supported a ban on assault weapons. beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #75

This letter is in response to what Sanders just said, not his record yallerdawg Mar 2016 #78

Implying that Bernie wants these weapons sold to civilians is dishonest. beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #80

Bernie said he would look again at the gun manufacturing liabiity law. yallerdawg Mar 2016 #92

That is what SLAPP lawsuits intend to do, bankrupt gun manufacturers. beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #93

This is about the legality of selling a weapon used repeatedly for mass kilings. yallerdawg Mar 2016 #95

You cannot and should not be able to sue a manufacturer for producing and selling legal products. beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #96

You went down the rabbit hole! yallerdawg Mar 2016 #98

If the product is defective then the manufacturer can already be sued. beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #100

Litigation is the tool used to determine if a product is defective TeddyR Mar 2016 #101

Thanks BMUS! mountain grammy Mar 2016 #81

This is the third time they posted this article. beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #82

And I appreciate you! mountain grammy Mar 2016 #89

Kick LAS14 Mar 2016 #8

No way gun company's shoiuld be sued just because you don't like guns. Idiotic. If the gun.... Logical Mar 2016 #10

Yes they are Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #15

it's kooky... tk2kewl Mar 2016 #38

What type of gun? Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #42

ar15 tk2kewl Mar 2016 #50

The one that functions Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #51

sure... outlaw all assault rifles tk2kewl Mar 2016 #53

What about Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #56

What we are talking about: yallerdawg Mar 2016 #21

Yep, a civilian semi-automatic rifle Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #23

Expanding the customer base is the nature of business. yallerdawg Mar 2016 #24

Like any other Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #26

Sort a like opioids and cigarettes. yallerdawg Mar 2016 #30

manufacturers can and are sued Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #32

So mass killings including children... yallerdawg Mar 2016 #34

Point to that promotion of this product Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #39

From Remington: yallerdawg Mar 2016 #49

They are advertising a great hunting rifle line Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #54

Fail? yallerdawg Mar 2016 #59

Because the military and police need Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #61

Somehow the AR-15 finds its way back to mass killing! yallerdawg Mar 2016 #69

Handguns are used much more often Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #73

Sandy Hook? AR-15? yallerdawg Mar 2016 #76

Ok Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #77

Then work to pass a law to make it illegal TeddyR Mar 2016 #43

Put a liberal on the SC and lots of stuff might change in this arena. Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #48

What would change? TeddyR Mar 2016 #72

Which is why we change Federal law. yallerdawg Mar 2016 #86

And what federal law would you propose changing? TeddyR Mar 2016 #102

K&R mcar Mar 2016 #29

I'm glad they spoke out. book_worm Mar 2016 #35

Such a painful letter to read. Lucinda Mar 2016 #36

Huge K&R! hrmjustin Mar 2016 #44

K&R ismnotwasm Mar 2016 #46

Sorry, NO. Should Ford be sued when a drunk driver kills someone? Or Miller Brewing Co.? AzDar Mar 2016 #55

None of those products were designed to kill people... yallerdawg Mar 2016 #64

The auto industry does not have immunity. Thinkingabout Mar 2016 #85

While I sympathize immensely with these people, Vinca Mar 2016 #57

Why immunity from liability for only this one industry? Why not let it be litigated? swag Mar 2016 #58

They are not immune from liability if one of their products is defective and causes harm. Vinca Mar 2016 #63

What if the way they market their guns and to whom is "defective"? Koinos Mar 2016 #88

That's a stretch. Vinca Mar 2016 #94

The only person that can purchase Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #97

It's is called SLAAP Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #65

Sanders said he would look at this law again. yallerdawg Mar 2016 #71

Simplistic and wrong. That is Sanders campaign, it a nutshell lunamagica Mar 2016 #99

Kick LAS14 Mar 2016 #103

This is one of the reasons so many of my friends and family support Hillary Clinton... Walk away Mar 2016 #104

KnR Hekate Mar 2016 #105