Tell Me Again Why Gun Manufacturers Cannot Be Sued For Their Defective Products?

[VermontKevin]

Gun experts now agree that the Vegas shooter used a fully automatic weapon.

http://abc7ny.com/gun-experts-vegas-shooter-used-fully-automatic-weapon/2479938/

Now, fully automatic weapons are illegal. But you can buy a semi-auto, and an inexpensive kit, and make a gun fully auto.

https://www.wired.com/story/las-vegas-shooting-automatic-rifle/

Now, it seems to me that if you are manufacturing an item, any item, and you know that there is a cheap way to disable the safety features, shouldn't you be held accountable for not attempting to make a better product?

Let's take baby formula. What if you, as a manufacturer, found out there was an incredible resale market of expired baby formula? WHat if you realized that all people had to do was remove an easily peelable label and that would take care of the expiration date?

Let's say you find out that babies are dying because the expired formula is depleted of nutrition.

Let's say you do some research and you find out that you can fix the problem by changing your manufacturing process, but it will eat into your profits.

And let's say you do absolutely nothing until parents of these children sue your ass off for damages, and to get you to make a better product?

That sounds like the American Way to me. PUNISH CORPORATIONS who refuse to the right thing. If not through legislation, then through the EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER LAW afforded by the judiciary.

Except for guns:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

Here is the vote breakdown:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/109-2005/s219

[Watchfoxheadexplodes]

1. Has it been made official he modified them?

I have seen some gun experts say by the sound these could have been true automatic weapons.

[VermontKevin]

4. Use Occam's razor on this one.

Either he owned a fully auto since before 1986, or he took one of the many guns he just bought and modified it cheaply.

[Watchfoxheadexplodes]

5. Not saying he did not

I am as curious as anyone to see the weapons list.

[JoeStuckInOH]

19. You can STILL buy full auto guns... he could have bought these things as recently as this year.

The only prohibition for regular civilians is that is that the GUN was manufactured and registered before 1986. But once the guns were registered in 1986, those particular guns continue to be available for purchase indefinitely - so long as it is transferred legally.

Said otherwise, the 1986 "ban" isn't a ban at all. It's actually a prohibition on the registration of any NEWLY manufactured full auto guns for public consumption. All the old ones are still in the system though.

[VermontKevin]

20. Use Occam's razor again and read post 17.

[moriah]

32. Add in the fact he was wealthy...

... enough to own a plane, and the barriers become a little less cumbersome.

Apparently managing to acquire 40+ guns isn't that hard for someone of his wealth. I still wonder what assortment he used and do think they would have the records somewhere if it was a legally purchased fully automatic weapon.

I also suspect that even though wealth allows for black market purchase, the more likely event is he modified legally obtained guns, very likely with legally obtained kits.

[Iggo]

2. That gun was designed to kill people. It worked perfectly. That ain't defective. (n/t)

[VermontKevin]

3. I absolutely want gun manufacturers to have to make that defense in a court.

[Iggo]

10. Me, too. (n/t)

[Baconator]

16. They did and won...

[Weekend Warrior]

9. Also seems it might have been easily modified.

Something manufactures don't take seriously. I want that to be heard in court. The manufacturers are clearly negligent. That is why the humpers demand this special protection.

[JoeStuckInOH]

24. The ATF determines if guns are easily modifiable, not the manufacturers.

Designs for manufactures' weapons (and accessories) are typically submitted to the ATF technical branch for technical evaluation and determination. The ATF responds to the company with a letter of determination regarding the item's classification, and if the item is determined BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT AGENCY to be easily convertible to full automatic, then it is automatically considered a machine gun and the company is advised to treat it as such. If you took a company to court and said, "Your product is defective because it can be easily converted" that company would simply produce the aforementioned ATF paperwork concerning the product in question and the case would be dismissed.

Summary: The ATF makes the decision on whether something is easily convertible to full auto based on a manufacturers supplied sample.

So you'd be looking to sue the ATF in the case you mentioned.

[Weekend Warrior]

30. "The ATF determines if guns are easily modifiable"

Your statement leaves out a lot. It absolves gun manufacturers of all responsibility. That is a part of what has happened. The business I own is under heavy regulation. That does not absolve me of representing myself morally and ethically.

"So you'd be looking to sue the ATF in the case you mentioned."

No, we should be able to sue gun manufacturers for putting out a product they know to be easily modified. I get that some will pass the buck and protect the industry at all cost. And I do mean all costs.

[JoeStuckInOH]

41. Gun manufacturers produce the firearm design approved by the ATF. It's pretty simple.

I guess if the manufactured design deviated from the approved samples supplied to the ATF tech branch (for determination)... then yeah, the gun company may be held liable.

But when the US regulatory agency that interprets all the laws and grants all your permits says "yes this design is compliant and not considered easily convertible"... then all the gun company was doing was producing a gun known to not be easily convertible. They were following the letter of the law after the governing authority literally told them they were doing it correctly.

That's a pretty friggin' rock solid defense if taken to court.

You'd have to PROVE the gun company knew it was easily convertible IN SPITE of their own technical research and in spite of the ATFs technical review of the design and samples.

[Weekend Warrior]

44. You think I don't get that.

I am also smart enough to understand it is yet another step to absolve them from liability.

"You'd have to PROVE the gun company knew it was easily convertible IN SPITE of their own technical research and in spite of the ATFs technical review of the design and samples."

Only a complete dumb fuck or gun manufacturer with their own motives doesn't understand how easily convertible some of their models are. Gun manufacturers claiming ignorance to this is laughable.

[kcr]

52. The ATF controls time, space and matter? That's amazing!

So, you think that a corporation can just shrug their shoulders metaphorically when presented with a claim of a defective product, and say, welp! Not our problem! A goverment agency told us it was fiiiiine! Not our fault! And continue making the defective product without a hitch? I guess that would be the Lalalalala Can't Hear You! defense. And that's the reason we should give them immunity from lawsuits.

Nah. Don't think so.

[Weekend Warrior]

6. If they could be, guns would be made more difficult to modify.

The protections they have are simply disgusting. Gun humpers love it.

[VermontKevin]

7. Exactly. The PLCAA needs to be repealed.

[Weekend Warrior]

8. I agree. Here is the break-down of the house vote.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/109-2005/h534

We have some work to do.

[R B Garr]

40. Those Statistically Notable Votes are very interesting... nt

[tammywammy]

14. PLCAA doesn't prevent lawsuits for defective devices. n/t

[VermontKevin]

21. Awesome. Would you agree easily modifiable guns are defective?

[tammywammy]

25. What do you mean by "modifiable"?

I'm a non-gun owner. From my understanding there's a lot of items that can be modified on a gun from the stock to adding and removing things like a scope.

To convert a semi to auto is already illegal, and again from my knowledge isn't easily done.

[VermontKevin]

26. If you read my links, you will see that an easily available and inexpensive kit

is available. YOu can Youtube the instructions, which don't seem difficult.

I would call that a defect.

[Autumn]

11. The gun wasn't defective, it worked just as it was designed to do. Would any jury really find

the claim that a gun that killed over 50 people and injured over 500 was defective? IMO any gun that holds over 6 bullets should be illegal.

Maybe we need to go after loopholes and make the manufacturing of those kits that turns a gun that is sadly and stupidly enough legal to own, into a weapon that was banned in 1986 illegal ?


from your article

Another possibility is that Paddock used a "bump" or "slide" kit advertised on the internet that can easily convert a semi-automatic gun into a "simulated" machine gun. The kits are popular among recreational gun users but are seen by gun control advocates as a huge loophole around the machine gun ban.

"These conversion kits are easily accessible, can be bought online," Gomez said. "And it turns out what is already a very super deadly weapon that can fire multiple rounds in a minute into a super deadly weapon that's basically a machine gun."

[ileus]

12. These inexpensive kits are allowed by the ATF (for now)

the firearm manufactures don't have to design to defeat their "legal" use.

[VermontKevin]

22. Exactly. No reason that can't be taken up by a jury though, right?

[ileus]

31. With the manufacture of the silly little kit I suppose you're right.

Of course the bump fire stock can be replaced by putting your thumb in your belt loop and pushing the gun forward.

[kcr]

48. You wouldn't classify that as a defect?

That seems like an awful design flaw to me and worthy of a lawsuit right there.

[ileus]

55. If I mount a machine gun on the hood of my F150

Should ford be sued for making a flat surface that I could bolt a machine gun mount to?

[kcr]

56. You can sue Ford for whatever reason you want to.

Whether or not it will be thrown out of court is another matter.

[tammywammy]

13. Gun manufacturers can be sued for defective devices and full auto guns are not illegal. n/t

[VermontKevin]

18. Great. I'd love to read the post PLCAA case that you are citing as evidence.

[tammywammy]

23. Remington trigger lawsuit. n/t

[VermontKevin]

27. Remmington never admitted defect, got out of 1/2 billion in liability, and

gave the average claimant $12.50.

WOuld you agree that guns that any gun that can be easily modified to full auto is defective?

[tammywammy]

29. The Remington lawsuit wasn't thrown out under PLCAA.

They settled because they knew they'd lose in court and the class accepted the settlement.

Any gun that can be easily modified to an automatic is to be treated as such by the ATF. I agree with that.

So, back to your OP. Gun manufacturers can be sued for defective devices and fully auto guns are not illegal in the US.

[VermontKevin]

39. Awesome. I think there should be a massive lawsuit.

[Man_Bear_Pig]

47. Wouldn't that be tampering with a product in a way not intended for use?

Illegally modifying?

Most product warranties state the warranty is null and void if the product is broken or changed through use other than the way it was designed. Wouldn't altering a weapon sold and billed as a semi-auto be altering the way it was intended for use and thus void the manufacturer of any wrong doing?

[Marengo]

15. "Fully automatic weapons" are NOT illegal on a Federal level with the legally proscribed purchase...

Process. Local jurisdictions can prohibit them, but as I recall NV doesn't. In other words, if he had the money, and it seems he may have, they may have been legally purchased. I could very well be behind on the latest info though.

[MosheFeingold]

17. It's a pretty invovled process

First, they have to be antique -- that is, older than 1986.

Second, to get it, you have to get a letter from your chief law enforcement officer (i.e., sheriff) saying it's OK.

Third, you pay a tax, wait about 8 months for the tax and background check at the federal level, and then can get your weapon.

Fourth, you shell out $15,000-$100,000 for the weapon.


Or, you go to YouTube, watch a video, and cut your own receiver with a certain tweak.

[Watchfoxheadexplodes]

28. Or

You buy it from a black market dealer.

We seem to be looking over the fact it's possible to get ones hands on a real automatic weapon.

He may have modified them probably so but I am stil curious if he had a fully automatic military gun.

[JoeStuckInOH]

34. Didn't they say the guy had $, was a firearms entusiast, a licensed pilot, and owned 2 PLANES?

Someone with the time and money to deal with FAA licensing and owning planes would have NO PROBLEM with licensing full autos with the ATF. And given that he also owned TWO planes, the $15k-20k for a full auto gun would also be easily afforded. The $200 full auto licensing fee would practically be pocket change.

Also, you don't need chief law enforcement signatures. The ATF removed that requirement over a year ago.

Transfers run anywhere from around 4-8 months. I own a few licensed items, and they took anywhere from about 2-6 months transferred depending on timeframe. This shooting was clearly a premeditated and planned out shooting. Assuming he already didn't own them (and keep in mind he was a wealthy gun collector with an arsenal), 6 months or so isn't too unbelievable for a planning people.

I wouldn't so easily dismiss the notion that these were licensed. But I wouldn't be surprised if they were illegal conversion too.

[HeartachesNhangovers]

33. I think all manufacturers should be protected

with something like the PLCAA, not just gun manufacturers. You don't even need to modify a vehicle to intentionally or unintentionally run people down. Shouldn't the vehicle manufacturer be protected from lawsuits because the end user did something harmful or illegal? Yes, they should.

[kcr]

45. If the manufacturer knew about an easily fixable flaw that allowed dangerous modification

and did nothing, shouldn't they be sued? No, corporations should not be protected from lawsuits. It does nothing but serve corporate interests and hurts the public.

[metalbot]

53. I'll play

Do you think that GM and Ford should be legally liable for failing to install breathalyzer interlocks on their cars, thus enabling people to drive them drunk and kill people?

And then, should they be held liable if someone defeats their interlock by having a sober child blow in the device?

Would you care to compare the number of people who have been killed by rifles that have been converted into machine guns with the number of people killed by drunk drivers? And then explain to me which one is an easily fixable problem that would save 10k lives a year?

At least be intellectually honest about your intentions and say "I want to sue gun manufacturers out of business via nuisance lawsuits". I can disagree with that, but at least I can respect the opinion.

If you're legitimately interested in easily fixable flaws that save thousands of lives each year, I'll look forward to reading your posts promoting breathalyzer interlocks as a mandatory safety feature.

[kcr]

57. What I think GM and Ford should be liable for isn't the point.

It's whether or not they should be protected from lawsuits. Whether or not the suits themselves are valid isn't the point. My point is no corporation or industry should be protected. That's what the courts are there for. THEY decide whether a case is valid, on the merits of each case. Not legislators before the fact.

[sarisataka]

35. I have seen no authority

Directly involved confirm he purchased or modified weapons to full auto, only "experts" making assumptions based on the sounds. Do you have a link to a source directly involved in the investigation that has confirmed such?

If he legally purchased full auto weapons, then they were not defective. If he modified them in a way that should have been foreseeable then a lawsuit could proceed even under the PLCAA

[Kaleva]

36. Much misinformation in you OP

Automatic weapons are legal here in the US.

Stock slides and bump fire does not make a semiautomatic a fully automatic gun.

Guns are designed to kill. To argue that makes them defective is an irrational arguement.

Guns are very safe when properly handled by a trained person. Accidental shootings are extremely rare. All others are the direct result of criminal negligence on the part of the adult holding the gun and the owner of the weapon.

[Lee-Lee]

37. Lots of misinformation in this thread

Gun makers are not protected from lawsuits for defective products. Anyone or any source who tells you they are is simply telling you a lie.

If you buy a gun and it was made defective and explodes in your hand, you can and should sue the manufacturer because it was defective.

The only thing they are protected from is frivolous lawsuits from people not because of defects but because it criminal misuse or negligent use. That came about because gun control groups adopted a strategy of trying to bankrupt gun stores and Akers by filing lawsuits over instances where people criminally misused their product- even knowing they likely wouldn't win many if any of the lawsuits but just with the intent of bankrupting them with never ending legal fees.

What people who advocate this are doing is the same as advocating suing an auto maker and beer maker because someone got drunk, drive and killed someone- arguing that the entire product of alcohol was defective because it's only intent and use is to lower judgement and inhibitions and make people intoxicated. That's absurd, of course.

The BATFE technical branch sets the legal standard for what is and is not a machine gun and what is or is not readily convertible to a machine gun. They don't allow the sale of anything they say is easily converted, nor the sale of devices that can easily convert. So-called "conversion kits" are not really what they claim to be.

Any product or GI on the market had been approved by the BATFE as being of a high enough level of complexity to make a machine gun that they judge it ok to sell on the market.

Products like "bump fire" stocks don't actually covert anything. It still takes one pull of the trigger for each round. They just make it faster to pull the trigger by allowing the rifle to bounce forward about- but in reality when that happening accurate fire is almost impossible so they are really just a novelty.

[kcr]

46. If they are protected from frivolous lawsuits, then they are indeed protected from lawsuits.

Talk about spreading misinformation. It is for courts to decide if a lawsuit is frivolous. Corporations should not be shielded from consumer lawsuits and it's shameful to see any support for such a thing on a Democratic website.

[TCJ70]

49. I don't think we should hold product manufacturers responsible for criminal use of their products.

Let's say someone replaced the bumper on their car with a set of multiple spinning blades and then plowed through a group of people. Should the car maker be held responsible for having an easily modifiable product? No.

There is a false claim being made in the OP. Gun manufacturers are not shielded from all lawsuits, especially not defective product lawsuits. All the PLCAA does is say they're responsible if they've messed up in some way. That isn't he case here at all.

[kcr]

50. Well then, when you're on a jury you can vote that way.

Corporations should not be protected from lawsuits and then free to make all the dangerous products they want to, protected from consequences. Consumers should be able to sue for damages and the facts found in a court of law. If the case is frivolous, the facts will bear out in a court of law. That shouldn't be pre-determined.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

38. You're On The Right Track, But Not Quite There Yet

I came up with a solution that was very similar a few years ago: make the gun manufacturers civilly liable when their products are used to commit crimes. After discussing the idea with several people, it was brought to my attention that it can't be done. The example that swayed me was that if someone uses a car to commit a crime (like if they run people down, etc.), you can't sue car manufacturers. And I agree with that point.

However, I do think you're on the right track. The only way we can curb gun violence is by hitting the gun manufacturers in the wallet. I'm still not sure how to do that, exactly, but I'm convinced that if it's no longer profitable to manufacture instruments of death, they'll stop. We just have to figure out how to make it so it's not cost-effective anymore. I don't have that solution right now, but I'm pretty sure that's how we do it, because it's also become painfully obvious to me that we'll never get any kind of common sense gun control through Congress.

[spanone]

42. because they are precious.... declared so by our republican congress

[ecstatic]

43. Ask Bernie? nt

[Demsrule86]

51. There is a law against suing gun manufacturers.

[jmowreader]

54. Probably because the guns aren't defective

Your baby formula example is not really applicable; AR-15s don't come with instructions on how to make them fire a whole magazine with one squeeze of the trigger, and they're not easy to convert to do that. The "manufacturing process" that allows guns to be modified for select fire was changed a LONG time ago.