People are *still* trying to defend the gun industry legal immunity bill? Really?

[DanTex]

I mean, I get that in the heat of elections, people get this "my candidate can do no wrong" thing. So we had the odd spectacle of "progressives" defending a bill that carved out a special legal immunity for corporations in an industry with a powerful lobbying arm.

But that was then. Still now? Really?

Because by now all the NRA talking points have been thoroughly debunked, over and over. No, the lawsuits being filed weren't frivolous. Quite the opposite, they were succeeding, which is why the gun industry and the NRA made the legal immunity such a priority. And, yes, the gun industry was (and now, thanks to this law, continues to be) knowingly and intentionally profiting from unlawful misuse of their products. They knew their guns were getting into criminal hands, they knew their product design, marketing and sales practices were facilitating that, they knew they were profiting from it, and they liked it and didn't want to stop. Sort of like the tobacco companies that targeted kids with their marketing, even though they couldn't legally sell to kids directly.

But you don't even have to get into details to understand how horrible and corrupt this law was. Why? Because if it were actually a good, principled idea to exempt companies from lawsuits stemming from unlawful misuse of their products, then they would have passed a law that exempted every corporation, not just the gun industry. Did they do that? No. Was that even discussed? Of course not. Because that's a horrible idea, and everyone knows it's a horrible idea. So they just made a blanket giveaway to the NRA.

Come on, people. If not for the fact that Bernie voted for PLCAA, only the most brainwashed of gun fanatics would be supporting it. Because giving legal immunity to corporations, taking away the right of victims to hold corporations accountable, this is the exact opposite of progressivism. And the primaries are over. It's OK to accept that every politician occasionally casts bad votes. Bernie's vote for PLCAA doesn't negate his strong record on most issues, nor does it make him a bad person. But it was a bad vote, that is undeniable.

[hlthe2b]

1. that is one of the most undemocratic bills ever passed.

second only, perhaps to the Citizens United unlimited money in politics court decision

[NCTraveler]

2. They feel they have to.

Doesn’t matter that their deity has evolved. Gun humpers gunna hump.

[LonePirate]

3. Hero worship is the reason why some on the left have no issue with this legal immunity.

For some, their hero can do no wrong even when he is clearly is.

[Abnredleg]

4. Why Didn't they cover everyone?

Because the default position under common-law is that you are NOT held responsible for the unlawful act of another person so there is no need for such broad legislation.

[DanTex]

5. LOL. Welcome to DU!

If that actually were the default position, then there would be no need for a special exemption. Seriously, this isn't very complicated.

If a corporation profits from facilitating unlawful acts, they can be held liable. Tobacco companies marketing to kids. Banks facilitating money laundering. Etc. Unless it happens to be a gun corporation.

[Abnredleg]

6. No need to welcome me

I've been a member for 10 years.


The PLCAA does allow for lawsuits for damages resulting from the acts of third-party criminals in certain circumstances:

-Where the transferor (e.g., the retail store) is convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 922(u), or a state analogue, which prohibits unlawfully taking a firearm from a store’s business premises (e.g., giving a gun to a buyer who has not passed the requisite background check).

-Negligent entrustment or negligence per se. Similar to giving car keys to a person who is plainly intoxicated. You cannot sell a gun to a person who is under the influence.

-Whenever the seller violated the law relating to sales of the product — such as by knowingly making a false entry in record books, or disposing of the product to a person whom the seller had reasonable cause to believe was legally prohibited from possessing the product.

So gun shops can be sued if they break the law - what is difficult is suing manufacturers since they are not selling the guns directly. If they sell guns to a gun shop that constantly breaks the law then they would be liable. The examples you give involve direct selling to the public so it is easier to show liability, while in the case of gun manufactures they are not selling directly to the public. They of course are still liable for any design or manufacturing defects.

At to the uniqueness of the PLCAA, there are numerous state and federal laws that protect manufactures from lawsuits. Legislation protecting manufactures of vaccines and general aviation aircraft are two that come to mind.

And as to the need, the reason why it was passed was that a coalition of attorneys and cities created a strategy to bankrupt the industry through long, drawn-out litigation. The cases were usually dismissed, due to the point I made earlier about liability, but winning the cases wasn't point to begin with. That's why in this particular instance legislation was passed.

[DanTex]

8. Aha. 10 years in the gungeon. Now I'm starting to understand...

Yes, even under PLCAA, gun companies can't directly sell guns to convicted felons. Woohoo!

Of course, they can still knowingly and intentionally profit from guns they know will end up in the hands of criminals, and they can adopt practices that they know will lead to more gun violence, etc. Again, like I said, if this were really a matter of common law and precedent, there would (obviously) not be any need for PLCAA. This is the key point. The gun industry didn't want to play by the same rules as everyone else, so they got their stooges in congress to change the rules for them and only them.

There's no justification for it whatsoever. If there were, the law would apply to everyone, not just gun companies.

And, yes, I am fully aware that many industries are trying to reduce their legal liability by bribing governments. In fact, this is one of the big ways that right-wing groups like ALEC are trying to push effective deregulation -- by making it more difficult for citizens to hold corporations accountable via the court system. And, yes, PLCAA falls right in line with those efforts of putting profits over people.

What you seem to have missed in your 10 years of reading the gun group here is that, outside of the gun group, this is a progressive message board, and so people here are not favorable to increasing corporate power at the expense of the citizenry. I'm sure that on right-wing message boards this kind of thing goes over great.

[Abnredleg]

10. I'm Not a Gun Owner

I'm life-long Democrat who happens to have a background in law and know how to interpret it. Any crime has to have a nexus between act and actor, and that's the issue here. Guns are legal, 99% of them are not used for unlawful purposes, and waving your hands and yelling "gunz are bad" doesn't change that.

In case you haven't figured it out, there are a lot of Democrats who own guns and as much as you make snide comments about RW talking points or Russian trolls, the fact remains that you can still be a gun owner and be a Democrat. My position on guns is basically identical to the party's platform:

We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements--like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole--so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

[EffieBlack]

12. Given your background in law, you surely know this bill was perfectly constitutional and legal

But your argument, specious as it is, is a common excuse given by the gun lobby and those who do their bidding.

You certainly also must know - just by looking at its plain language, the fundamental aspect of legal interpretation - that our party platform doesn’t even come close to supporting your position.

[DanTex]

13. Uh-huh. You know who actually has a background in law?

Both the people who filed the lawsuits against gun companies, as well as the people who carved out the loophole for the gun industry. Unlike you, who seem to think that the PLCAA is superfluous, all the lawyers involved understood that it was indeed a special and valuable exemption for a single industry. That's why the NRA fought so hard for it. Not because the lawsuits were baseless, but precisely the opposite -- the lawsuits were succeeding (see Smith and Wesson) and the NRA didn't want to see the gun industry lose any profits simply because people were dying. The NRA wouldn't fight hard for a law that didn't change anything.

Anyway, leaving aside the fact that you come to a progressive message boards and exclusively post pro-NRA talking points, you still haven't given the slightest justification as to why the gun industry is so special that they can't play by the same common law civil liability rules as everyone else. That's the crux of the matter.

[hack89]

7. It's not complicated

it's the same lesson gun control groups failed to learn from the Federal AWB debacle - if you are going to take down the gun lobby you have to hit with your first shot. You don't get second chances.

It was just poor politics. Perhaps a good idea but definitely poorly executed.

[DanTex]

9. As always, hack89 sticking up for those unsung heroes in corporate lobbying.

[hack89]

14. Politics are a tough game

you have to play to win. My only point is that gun control consistently sucks at it.

[DanTex]

15. You can gloat about Trump's victory too if you'd like. Don't be bashful!

[hack89]

16. No need. Hillary and Bernie would have been just as good for gun owners.

Just like Obama was. Did you notice the advances gun rights made under his presidency?

The fact that a gun owner like myself can choose to move to a Democratic state like Rhode Island to enjoy all the benefits of living in a progressive state should tell you something. What it should tell you is that Democratic gun owners aren't worried about draconian gun control being enacted. The fact that I also choose to live in a state with relatively strict gun control should also tell you something - you and I agree on many gun control issues.

[Demsrule86]

17. Trump isn't good for anyone...or any reason.

[hack89]

18. Which is why I didn't vote for him.

my point is that Hillary and Bernie represented no threat to my gun rights so it was not a factor in choosing who to vote for.

[Demsrule86]

19. At least there is that.

[EffieBlack]

11. If certain people (or person) supported it, it will be defended.

I’ll just leave it at that.