2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumParents of Aurora victim slam Sanders over gun bill support
Parents of a victim of the 2012 shooting in Aurora, Colo., joined a Hillary Clinton campaign call on Friday and slammed Bernie Sanders for his past support of a measure that resulted in them owing $200,000 in legal fees after suing the online retailer who sold bullets to their daughter's killer.
Speaking to reporters, Lonnie and Sandy Phillips, the parents of Jessica Ghawi, explained how a 2005 law Sanders supported gave immunity to gun dealers including the retailer they sued. Their lawsuit against the retailer was thrown out because of that law, the parents told reporters.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/274918-parents-of-aurora-victim-slams-sanders-over-gun-bill
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
GeorgiaPeanuts
(2,353 posts)When a person gets in a wreck with a car due to their own negligence then it shouldn't be fair for the victims to sue the car manufacturer. Same reason if a gun is used by a criminal the gun manufacturer shouldn't be liable. How would the manufacturer be liable?
CalvinballPro
(1,019 posts)GeorgiaPeanuts
(2,353 posts)No ifs ands or buts. If they skirt the law, then they should be punished.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)GeorgiaPeanuts
(2,353 posts)Just as a gun can be used legally for self defense and for hunting. The purpose of these liability laws seems to be to kill gun manufacturers in America. If the goal is to ban guns, then ban guns the right way. Don't try to do it sneaky backdoor routes. It is the same thing GMO forced labeling which many activists for it say they specifically for see it killing GMO and that is why they want to get it passed.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)GeorgiaPeanuts
(2,353 posts)Guns are legal. You don't like that, repeal the 2nd amendment.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...that 'the purpose of the weapons used in Aurora is mass shooting, murder and/or assault?
Is there anything at all from the manufacturer that names a purpose?
A prized skill in business, survival and evolution is the ability to adapt, improvise and overcome challenges presented by the world.
There are multiple valid and legal purposes to have a gun and many morally acceptable uses for a gun. To burden the manufacturer with the misdeeds of an owner or user over whom the manufacturer has no specific control is ridiculous.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)I can not believe they will trash their own values to defend their Messiah.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
Autumn
(45,066 posts)Don't like it, change it .
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)thankful to vote Hillary Clinton.
Tell us the the make and model you own?
Autumn
(45,066 posts)
jillan
(39,451 posts)
LexVegas
(6,060 posts)Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)More bullshit coming from the Queen and friends. I feel for the victims, but if anyone should be sued, it's the NRA.
jillan
(39,451 posts)
jmg257
(11,996 posts)"The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligence when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime."
15 U.S. Code § 7901 - Findings; purposes
(a) FindingsCongress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.
(3) Lawsuits have been commenced against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms that operate as designed and intended, which seek money damages and other relief for the harm caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including criminals.
(4) The manufacture, importation, possession, sale, and use of firearms and ammunition in the United States are heavily regulated by Federal, State, and local laws. Such Federal laws include the Gun Control Act of 1968, the National Firearms Act [26 U.S.C. 5801 et seq.], and the Arms Export Control Act [22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.].
(5) Businesses in the United States that are engaged in interstate and foreign commerce through the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, importation, or sale to the public of firearms or ammunition products that have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce are not, and should not, be liable for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products or ammunition products that function as designed and intended.
(6) The possibility of imposing liability on an entire industry for harm that is solely caused by others is an abuse of the legal system, erodes public confidence in our Nation’s laws, threatens the diminution of a basic constitutional right and civil liberty, invites the disassembly and destabilization of other industries and economic sectors lawfully competing in the free enterprise system of the United States, and constitutes an unreasonable burden on interstate and foreign commerce of the United States.
(7) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal Government, States, municipalities, and private interest groups and others are based on theories without foundation in hundreds of years of the common law and jurisprudence of the United States and do not represent a bona fide expansion of the common law. The possible sustaining of these actions by a maverick judicial officer or petit jury would expand civil liability in a manner never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution, by Congress, or by the legislatures of the several States. Such an expansion of liability would constitute a deprivation of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
(8) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal Government, States, municipalities, private interest groups and others attempt to use the judicial branch to circumvent the Legislative branch of government to regulate interstate and foreign commerce through judgments and judicial decrees thereby threatening the Separation of Powers doctrine and weakening and undermining important principles of federalism, State sovereignty and comity between the sister States.
(b) PurposesThe purposes of this chapter are as follows:
(1) To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.
(2) To preserve a citizen’s access to a supply of firearms and ammunition for all lawful purposes, including hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive or recreational shooting.
(3) To guarantee a citizen’s rights, privileges, and immunities, as applied to the States, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to section 5 of that Amendment.
(4) To prevent the use of such lawsuits to impose unreasonable burdens on interstate and foreign commerce.
(5) To protect the right, under the First Amendment to the Constitution, of manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and trade associations, to speak freely, to assemble peaceably, and to petition the Government for a redress of their grievances.
(6) To preserve and protect the Separation of Powers doctrine and important principles of federalism, State sovereignty and comity between sister States.
(7) To exercise congressional power under article IV, section 1 (the Full Faith and Credit Clause) of the United States Constitution.
petronius
(26,602 posts)been) thrown out as a result of both the PLCAA and a similar state law...
hack89
(39,171 posts)they obeyed every state and federal law. The parent's argument came down to "they should have guessed that he was a mass murderer based on ...... we don't really know but we know they did something wrong."
SheenaR
(2,052 posts)The store can be held liable for nothing. People act like these shops and manufacturers are handing guns to people and saying "ok now, go shoot people"
People are killed tragically in many different ways. Are we going to sue knife companies? Hammer and hardware stores? Candlestick makers? How about the lead pipe makers? Not to sound like the game Clue but seriously, come on.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)That this lawsuit would be dismissed and the plaintiffs required to pay defendants' legal fees. So no surprise there.
I've seen similar posts attacking Bernie on this same issue and not once has anyone articulated a logical reason for holding a gun manufacturer or dealer liable in these types of cases. About the best I've seen is "we should let a jury decide," but that isn't a valid reason for repealing the PLCAA and really isn't a reason at all. We don't hold knife manufacturers liable for stabbings or Louisville Slugger liable for beatings, and Smith & Wesson isn't liable for the misuse of its product.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)any kind of liability
Bernie Sanders did that for the gun industry
jmg257
(11,996 posts)"However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible."
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and other members of Congress?
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Hmm...Should they be?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)falling into the wrong hands?
jmg257
(11,996 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)who pushed the sweetheart deal for the gun lobby that Bernie voted for
jmg257
(11,996 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”
The brazen public comments of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/261307-why-congress-stopped-gun-control-activism-at-the-cdc
I notice the OP linked to the same source, The Hill.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Gun manufacturers and dealers are not exempt from "any kind of liability." It is important to get the facts right.
If a bunch of people were suing Louisville Slugger when someone used a bat to commit a murder then maybe the sporting goods manufacturers would need a similar bill. And you didn't even attempt to explain why a gun manufacturer should be held liable for misuse of their product. We don't hold any other company liable for product misuse.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)plan.
they said he broke that promise to them
they did not sound like big fans of his on the call
Trenzalore
(2,331 posts)Anyone can be a liberal in Vermont. This was the one position where he would have to step out of line and convince his constituents and he showed he's just like any other politician.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...I get a parking ticket, can I blame the legislator who passed the law?
Perhaps I had some culpability?
Vinca
(50,269 posts)The law is the law is the law. Wishing it wasn't won't make a court case turn out differently. As for Bernie's position, I don't see how a legal manufacturer selling a legal product to a legal buyer has any liability even if the law allows them to be sued. The purpose of the law was to protect small gun shops from nuisance lawsuits that would bankrupt them.
jillan
(39,451 posts)ridiculous.
The retailer followed the law.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)They are not props to be used for partisan games.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Classy.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
The legal "exception" is desired by gun-banners who can't seem to get their way by legislation or through the courts.
Check all the suits filed BEFORE the Act was passed: Da big ZERO success rate.
