Gun industry blanket would leave citizens in the cold

[Dali Llama]

Gun industry blanket would leave citizens in the cold

February 25, 2004

The gun shop that was the source for the assault rifle used by the Washington, D.C., snipers can't account for 238 guns listed in its inventory. Yet, Bull's Eye Shooter Supply in Tacoma, Wash., is still in business. Chuck's Gun Shop in Riverdale was found to be the nation's largest supplier of crime guns, but its owner has never been charged with a crime. Is it any wonder that outraged citizens are turning to lawsuits to stem the illicit trade in firearms?

Clearly our lawmakers, law enforcement authorities, prosecutors and government regulators charged with licensing gun shops are letting us down. A survey of gun shops by Americans for Gun Safety found the three federal laws aimed at corrupt gun shops were "enforced so rarely they might as well not exist."

Into that vacuum flowed litigation. Now the gun industry has responded with legislation pending in the Senate this week to grant it immunity against lawsuits unless criminal wrongdoing is committed. Civil litigation usually focuses on negligence, as in, say, a gun shop managing to lose 238 weapons, one of them used in that killing rampage around the nation's capital. If lawsuits are the only way to shut down irresponsible gun shops, then shame on our legislators and law enforcement, but let the suits be filed.

Lawsuits against manufacturers of firearms are a different matter. Why should they suffer litigation every time some miscreant commits murder or a corrupt gun shop sells to gang bangers? Suing them sounds, understandably to honest gun owners, like a stealth assault on their Second Amendment rights.

Still, granting blanket immunity is not the answer, and the Senate bill should be rejected. It's true that many legitimate businesses are hounded and harassed by the trial lawyers' bar. But let's have more general tort reform, perhaps such as having the losers in lawsuits bear the costs of frivolously dragging companies producing legal products into court.

The Senate would be egregiously wrong to deny Americans frustrated over the illicit gun traffic the one weapon that seems to hold out promise for combatting it. Only a handful of gun dealers nationwide are responsible for this ugly business, and no U.S. senator should be in their corner.

[Leftoverdj]

Lotta whackos out there, Dali.

And you seem to find and post them all.

[Mauser]

I think a very simple solution to this and all other forms of frivolous litigation is to have the losers pay the actual attorneys fees and costs of the winners.  The American Bar Association is predictably against this as it means there will be a whole lot less money out there for its members.  Probably a whole lot fewer members too.

This solution does nothing to harm meritorious claims.

On balance, blanket tort immunity for any industry is probably not a good idea because a company should get sued if it makes a product that is unreasonably dangerous to a user while being used as it should, ie: a Ford Pinto.  Nobody bought them originally thinking there was added danger (more than one would otherwise think) when being rear ended.  A gun maker that builds a 357 revolver that blows up at 15000 lbs CUP, injuring the shooter, ought to be sued.

[Dali Llama]

Lotta whackos out there, Dali.

And you seem to find and post them all.

 :-D    :grin:

[gewehrfreund]

I believe the legislation we're talking about would not grant any "immunity" to gun companies when their products are defective or they have otherwise broken some law. It is designed to end the spate of frivolous lawsuits around the country; i.e. assigning liability to manufacturers for the illegal or imbicilic (a word?) use of their firearms.
As for crooked gun dealers, if they have broken laws, they should face justice just like anyone else. Unfortunately, in most cases, they are probably dealing within the statutes in their state. For example, it may not be illegal for someone to walk into a shop in state "X" and buy 20 handguns, but it should certainly set off some alarm bells (especially if it's a woman with a New York City accent:eek: ). Of course, anti-gunners refuse to deal with the real problem; the law-breaker who is a straw purchaser and is passing the guns on to the scum of the earth.
As for Mssr Llama, his quote is from a thinnly veiled anti-gun group who call themselves Americans for Gun Safety, but who should really be identified for what they are: a pro-gun control and more gun-law group. If anyone has viewed their website, it becomes clear where they are coming from. It's an anti attempt to look reasonable to a broad audience.

[Dali Llama]

Americans for Gun Safety, who should really be identified for what they are: a pro-gun control and more gun-law group. If anyone has viewed their website, it becomes clear where they are coming from. It's an anti attempt to look reasonable to a broad audience.

Dali Llama say he do not disagree. :-)