Stop Shielding Gun Makers

[Crittersdad]

This is a dangerous and stupid idea.

Are the car manufactures responsible for drunk driving deaths?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/24/...atedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

 

[Kirk Freeman]

But, but I've read on INGO that George W. Bush did nothing for gun owners?

 

[HoughMade]

But, but I've read on INGO that George W. Bush did nothing for gun owners?

This goes beyond Bushy. There’s no difference between the major political parties. None. Whatsoever.

 

[oze]

This is a dangerous and stupid idea.

Are the car manufactures responsible for drunk driving deaths?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/24/...atedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

Dammit, I hate when I blindly click on a link and it ends up taking me to the New York Times. Bad oze. Bad boy.

 

[JettaKnight]

Dammit, I hate when I blindly click on a link and it ends up taking me to the New York Times. Bad oze. Bad boy.

The link says "www.nytimes.com", doesn't it?

 

[HubertGummer]

Well if you can't legally ban guns, just put the gun makers out of business. The Left never gives up.

 

[PaulKersey]

As a non-attorney, a thought came to mind after reading the article. If the gun manufacturers took the advice of the anti-gun lobby and layered on multiple complicated “safeties,” would they not also face liability if a legitimate user was harmed because he became confused and couldn’t put the firearm into action when attempting to defend himself? I agree with the OP. It seems that the manufacturers face liability from multiple angles, with their only sin being that they are unpopular with the left-leaning activist wing of society.

 

[Hookeye]

They should sue the politicians that voted "yes" to gun free zones.

 

[madvarminter]

manufacturers are about as responcible for murders as coke and pepsi are for diabetes

personal accountability

 

[oze]

The link says "www.nytimes.com", doesn't it?

Well, yeah, sure, if you read before clicking.

 

[GIJEW]

"The law (prohibiting suing gun makers) allows gun manufacturers to market them as devices necessary for self defense...". The MF'ers tipped their hand. If our guns aren't necessary for defense than there isn't a compelling reason for our right to arms--like that british ***** Peters telling gun owners "sorry about your loss. Take up another sport."

 

[gmcttr]

"But our legal system has multiple checks to filter out lawsuits that lack merit."

Yeah right. Any body that believes this is a fool. Deep pockets can break less deep pockets with frivolous lawsuits any time they wish.

Without the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 the far left AG's of several states along with other far left groups would quickly kill the domestic firearms/ammunition manufacturers with 'death by one-thousand cuts' frivolous lawsuits. We know it and they know it...that's what the law was enacted to prevent.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the laws still allow these manufacturers to be sued for defective products.

 

[luger fan]

It's called " incrementalism" I always loved tat word. Anyway it means that instead of banning something, guns, and, booze, smokes just keep putting very small restrictions on us. One little bite at a time till you don't even notice it.

Its like cities restricting the amount of ammo a person can purchase for personal use, or Chicago wanting to put a .50 cent tax on EVERY ROUND BOUGHT.

 

[Riggs226]

Don't you know common sense doesn't get to apply in the world of fire arms?

 

[Leadeye]

Paid for by the trial lawyers association I'll bet. The 2A question is irrelevant.

Always follow the money

 

[Hoosierkav]

As one person said to me, the tobacco industry has black box warnings on their products, and the alcohol industry tells people to "drink responsibly"... ergo, there should be no legislated protection for the gun industry.

Well, shoot, if that's all it takes to keep the lawsuits at bay, I'm sure the manufacturers can come up with a way to appease the system.

 

[HoughMade]

Paid for by the trial lawyers association I'll bet. The 2A question is irrelevant.

Always follow the money

The Brady Center was the moving force behind the Gary Gun lawsuit which directly challenged Indiana's version of this statute. They and other gun control groups are pressing this issue as they did in ​Runnels. If the ATLA is involved, it wouldn't surpise me.

 

[OutdoorDad]

As one person said to me, the tobacco industry has black box warnings on their products, and the alcohol industry tells people to "drink responsibly"... ergo, there should be no legislated protection for the gun industry.

Well, shoot, if that's all it takes to keep the lawsuits at bay, I'm sure the manufacturers can come up with a way to appease the system.

I’m getting a new tattoo to make myself judgement proof!!

 

[2A_Tom]

.

 

[Leadeye]

When cities and their law firms go after potential revenue streams like they want to with the gun industry I'm wondering if they get first dibs. Is it sort of like during a bankruptcy where the government is first in line, then secured creditors, then everybody else? Maybe first filed, first tried? There isn't a lot of money to go around, nothing like big tobacco. Maybe there will be a mad scramble if protection is ever lifted.