Bill to protect gun makers from lawsuits before Congress

[Arbustosux]

bought and paid for....the NRA expects results for its large sums of donated money!!

[MrBenchley]

1. Disgraceful in every way

Let's hope the Democrats can block this disgrace.

[Superfly]

3. It should be pointed out

that this immunity will be granted only in lawsuits that seek damages for the criminal misuse of a lawfully manufactured product. The manufacturers cannot be held responsible for the third-party misuse of their products.

That being said, this immunity will not be granted for defective firearms that cause injury and/or death to a user.

Edited for grammar.

[Withergyld]

8. It also does not remove liability for

knowingly transferring a weapon to a prohibited person.

[pnb]

2. Good

I hope that gun makers won't get sued for a product that isn't defective.

[Wickerman]

4. Please provide a link

so that this item can be discussed with factual representation as opposed to opinion - provided an opinion can be found in the Gungeon... :think:

[Withergyld]

5. Is it S 659 or a new bill? here is alink to S 659

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.659:

[Superfly]

6. That's what we don't know.

It looks as if the original poster just wanted to start something then vamoosed.

[alwynsw]

10. Would that qualify this as a drive-by thread?

[DonP]

12. A Drive By

Sounds like a headline from the VPC website.

1. NRA is always evil

2. Guns are always evil

3. Therefore legislation to protect lawful manufacture and distribution of a legal product must be evil too

People keep throwing the word "immunity" around on this and it does not grant immunity from all lawsuits, never did.

[demsrule4life]

13. Here is a bill currently going through the process

in Indiana.

http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1648789&nav=0Ra7KsPv

[Columbia]

7. S.659

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:s.00659:

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - Prohibits any qualified civil liability action from being brought in any State or Federal court and requires pending actions to be dismissed. Defines such an action to: (1) include an action brought against a manufacturer or seller of a firearm, ammunition, or a component of a firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or against a trade association of such manufacturers or sellers, for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm; and (2) exclude an action brought against persons who transfer a firearm knowing that it will be used to commit a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime; an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se; an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a firearm willfully violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the firearm and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought; an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the firearm; or an action for physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the firearm when used as intended.

[alwynsw]

9. Opinions abound, Oh Great Moderator of the Maladjusted

I'd like a link, too

[alwynsw]

11. About the only thing I can find that's of discussion value is:

It appears that firearms manufacturers will be protected from lawsuits against them because a few people useing their products inappropriately- that's good. No protection for defective product liability - that's good, too.

[Wickerman]

14. I'm locking up shop here kids

The original poster put this in GD or the lounge and it was shuttled down here. He appears to have lost track of it. It do appear to be flamebait, whether intended or not. Plus, if it is the old legislation its been tossed around here once or twice.

Think about it - you put up a thread in the Lounge - it gets turfed to the Gungeon - ya gonna come on down and deal with it? Not if you are sane. That excludes most of us down here, huh? /joking. :P