Lawyer speaks out against gun immunity bill

[reddouglasfir]

http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.php?release=544

[FeebMaster]

1. Well,

I'm convinced.

[Columbia]

2. Hope you put your flame suit on

:eyes:

[Redneck Socialist]

3. I just want to make sure I have the facts straight

Someone steals a gun from a gun shop, goes on to commit another crime involving said gun and it is the gun shop's fault? Hmmmm....ok makes sense to me. :crazy:

[DoNotRefill]

5. even worse...

it's apparently the fault of the manufacturer who sold the gun to the properly licensed gun shop...

[Redneck Socialist]

9. I forgot that important little part

Yeah, that makes even more sense now. :eyes:

[Columbia]

4. Exceptions

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.1805:

(5) QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTION-

(A) IN GENERAL- The term `qualified civil liability action' means a civil action brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include--

(i) an action brought against a transferor convicted under section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code, or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so convicted;

(ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;

(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, including--

(I) any case in which the manufacturer or seller knowingly made any false entry in, or failed to make appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under Federal or State law;

(II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any person in making any false or fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of a qualified product; or

(III) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code;

(iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product; or

(v) an action for physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a manner that is reasonably foreseeable.

(B) NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT- As used in subparagraph (A)(ii), the term `negligent entrustment' means the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.

(C) REASONABLY FORESEEABLE- As used in subparagraph (A)(v), the term `reasonably foreseeable' does not include any criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product, other than possessory offenses.

(D) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- The exceptions described in subparagraph (A) shall be construed so as not to be in conflict and no provision of this Act shall be construed to create a Federal private cause of action or remedy.

[DavidMS]

6. I see no need for this law

The plaintifs brough suits that were thrown out of court. I believe that this law is unesecary.

[Emoto]

10. here's why...

It is the strategy of the gun "control" movement to put gun stores and manufacturers out of business by forcing them to spend millions to defend themselves against this sort of thing.

[Young Socialist]

7. how about a law outlawing

frivolous lawsuits?

[DavidMS]

8. Thats somthing for the courts to decide...

Though I see no reasion to permit defendants to suits (who prove them groundless) to recover multiple times their reasionable legal expenses. It must also protect against SLAPP suits.

http://www.casp.net/

However, there should be no law stating that you cannot file a claim. A court should be able to use its discression to determine if a suit is unlikely to suceed on its merrits and if that is the case, declare that the claimant can continue but if the claimant loooses they must pay the defendant's resionable expenses in adition to damages.

Most of the lawsuits against firearms manufactures, dealers and distributors realy should fall under an anti-slapp act as opposed to a immunities bill.

[MrSandman]

12. Or "loser pays"

[jhfenton]

15. I'm all for "loser pays."

It's an idea whose time has come. The default rule should be that the loser pays the expenses of the prevailing party, with rare case-by-case exceptions to be made by judges. The reverse is true now.

[alwynsw]

11. Why wouldn't a lawyer oppose this bill?

Many lawyers make their living through lawsuits - not most, but many. Why shoot themselves in the financial foot by closing off a potential income stream?

Has anyone bought a ladder lately? Because of lawsuits from idiots who have fallen off of ladders by either using them improperly or being just plain stupid and/or greedy nad the cost of defendin against those lawsuits - even the ones the manufacturers win; it now costs more for the warning stickers than it does to produce the ladder. In most cases, 100K seems to be the magic number. If the claim is below that, it generally gets settled out of court (read payoff to avoid the even higher cost of litigation). Guns are only one of the victims in our litigious society. Anyone or any company with deep pockets is a target for the greedy and their attornies. We all pay the settlements in higher costs for both the products and our own liability insurance.

That being said, in my experience, most attornies are upright folks who try to do both the right and legal thing without fail. Only a very visible few are Johnny Cochrans and wannabes.

[MrSandman]

13. And they only have to win, what 1 in 25?

And an anti-gun lawyer to boot. They are largely ineffective in legislative branch.

[jhfenton]

14. Trial Lawyers

Is it at all surprising that a big-time trial lawyer like Boies would oppose a bill to shut down the lucrative anti-gun legal industry?

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is crucial to prevent state courts in one anti-gun state (California, for example) from bankrupting the entire national firearms industry. Most states have already passed state versions of the act, but a national industry can be sued in any state.

[Wickerman]

16. locking thread

original poster offered no comment on the thread and has not returned to further defend it.