"So far as I know, the gun industry and gun sellers are the only business in America that is totally free of liability for their behavior. Nobody else is given that immunity. And that just illustrates the extremism that has taken over this debate." - Hillary Clinton For the most part, she is correct.
she's a liar because gun makers are liable for the same reasons car makers etc are liable. Hilldabeast wants gun makers liable for things no other product can be sued for such as suing Ford because a drunk driver runs someone over suing Jack Daniels because a drunk driver kills someone suing Kabar because someone uses a Kabar knife to stab somooen can you think of another product that is sued by SJWs because someone uses it to harm another?
They were sued for not taking reasonable precautions to avoid supplying criminal gun dealers with their products. They would just rather bury their heads in the sand as the profits roll in. Only Smith and Wesson had a conscience.
that's complete BS because gun makers don't sell guns to the public. so stop telling falsehoods. Makers sell either to wholesalers or licensed dealers who have a legal duty to conduct background checks. Bannerrhoid scum bags in office who are mad that they cannot ban guns encourage equally scummy attorneys to file suits against GUN MAKERS when one of their guns is misused by a criminal. no other product is subject to these politically motivated law suits. The maker of the Bushmaster rifle was sued by some scumbag attorney for Sandyhook but lets review the facts the rifle was made in NY, in accordance to federal and state laws pursuant to state and federal laws, it was sold to a wholesaler that then sold to a retail dealer in full conformity with federal and state laws the dealer sold the weapon to Adam Lanza's mother after she went through a background check and I believe a waiting period in CT and the gun was registered. Lanza killed his mother, took the firearm and then used it to kill innocents how is Bushmaster remotely responsible for any of those deaths? but the bannerrhoids said such suits are proper and claims that statutes preventing that type of law suit is wrong
It's like the Catholic Church sexual abuse cases. For decades, the church preferred to ignore the widespread problem and the victims. The gun industry also prefers to ignore victims and the fact that some of the gun dealers they do business with supply the criminal market with guns. "The gun industry has insisted, in this suit and others, that it has no knowledge of how its products fall into the wrong hands. But Mr. Ricker, whose two decades of service to the industry included a stint as a National Rifle Association lawyer, says gun makers have long been aware that distributors and dealers are diverting weapons illegally. The industry has looked the other way, he says, and silenced anyone in its ranks who showed an inclination to stop the practice." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/08/opinion/a-gun-lawsuit-s-smoking-gun.html Unfortunately, the NRA's buddies in Congress help shield the gun industry from the consequences of its grossly unethical behavior.
that's one of the most idiotic analogies I have ever seen, and you know damn well that those suits are designed to be a de facto ban on guns by forcing makers out of business. If the distributors or dealers are DOING WHAT YOU CLAIM then those dealers will be out of business. Its the same crap we get from bannerhoids about the No fly list-we cannot prove someone is a criminal or a terrorist and MERE SUSPICION is enough. if those dealers are violating the LAW then their licenses will be revoked-AMONG other things-I KNOW Because I was involved in both advising the ATF to revoke a couple FFLs and then defending the revocation when the dealers sued the ATF in court. I know this area of law better than almost anyone in the country. Ricker is a joke btw. He's like a former smoker or an ex drinker who wants to prove he's a true convert and lies like a rug so unless you can prove that the Bushmaster maker (remington arms) knew that the dealer that sold the rifle in FULL COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS was somehow doing something illegal (remember people are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY-a fact that the bannerrhoid movement hates to accept) then your arguments are completely and totally specious edit-that article you cited was 14 years old and that was before the federal statute stopping those stupid suits were passed
The key, as you briefly noted, was to encourage law suits not because of a product defect, but was politically motivated to demonize manufacturers and attemp to assign liability and blame to increase operating costs beyond profitability... just one of a series of attacks designed to circumvent the constitution and find a means to further their agenda no different than trying to introduce lead bullet bans, BC checks on ammo purchases, calls for gun ownership mandatory liability insurance, politicizing the courts, and etc. They can't get the vote for their objectives or for an Amendment repeal, so they sit back and try to find any means to achieve their end, and the end isn't just a gun ban.
which is why I believe that those who bring those suits need to be financially destroyed by the courts. I know in one case-I think Aurora, the court made the victims' families pay the movie theater they sued for the theater's lawyers fees and that has also happened with weak minded sheeple who are convinced by scum bag BM attorneys to bring suits against gun makers. But I believe that the sanctions should be more than merely compensating the gun makers for their legal costs. The attorneys who bring that crap and the plaintiffs should be financially destroyed because that is what they are trying to do to the gun makers. they need to be so severely punished in terms of financial sanctions that they are made an example of so as to prevent anymore such idiocy. and if a city brings the suit, the taxpayers should not be responsible rather than city officials who bring the suit should be PERSONALLY liable
One additional thought, run gun companies out of business and what will that mean to the military and tax payers? There is considerable interchange between tech development for the civilian and military markets and competition among multiple manufacturers is reflected in both the quality of weapons and their unit cost. I suppose we could buy from the Russians....or Chinese...
There you go again with your paranoia. The intent of the lawsuits was not to put anyone out of business. The intent was to get the gun industry to behave more ethically and less like a sociopath. The ATF can not do an adequate job of enforcing federal gun laws due to opposition by the NRA and its influence in Congress. "Ricker disagrees. 'This is spin. This is what I used to do for the industry,' he says. 'The National Rifle Association, every year, is before the appropriations committees on Capitol Hill advocating that ATF's budget be cut. They know that ATF does not have the manpower or the money to do an adequate job enforcing our gun laws.' " http://www.cbsnews.com/news/firing-back/ The NRA likes to pay lip service to the idea of enforcing the law and punishing the bad guys. In reality, they actually make it harder for the law to be enforced. They're much more concerned about protecting gun industry profits. The don't care about innocent people being victimized as long as they get their cut.
Guns do not have a history of product defects that kill their users really. I am all for outlawing guns, but the reality is their purpose is to kill others and not the user, and in that the manufacturers are very effective in coming up with products that achieve that purpose.
that is so contrary to all known reality it has to be dismissed as a deliberate lie. the fact is Ricker is a turd and he knows damn well that if someone has not been proven guilty that person is not guilty there are plenty of ways of prosecuting dealers who violate the laws. it was one of my specialities I know far more about this than Ricker who was the worst sort of rat. he has been dead for 8 years. he sold out the second amendment because he got his nose out of joint when he was fired from a pro gun group for meeting with Clinton in order to help Clinton advance bannerrhoid agendas, After he was fired from his high-profile position with the ASSC, he became a bitter hater of the industry that disgraced him. He had no credibility: he wasn't some noble whistleblower but a bitter vengeful fired employee
So long as a federally licensed firearms dealer possesses a license the ATF says is valid, the manufacturers have no reason to not supply their product to one who is not engaged in any illegal activity. If the ATF suspects wrongdoing, they can revoke the license and cut off the supply of firearms to a suspected dealer. But until such occurs, until there is evidence that the one who sold the firearms in compliance with federal and state laws has indeed done something wrong, there is nothing to be done on the matter. And the ATF does not experience any shortfalls in its authority to revoke licenses for legitimate reasons. If such were occurring the business license would be suspended by the ATF while an investigation is carried out. If evidence of wrongdoing is found, the license can be revoked, and the dealer prosecuted.
Then go to work getting a Constitutional amendment done so you can attempt to pass such an authoritarian law. Until then, you don't have a leg to stand on. In the meantime, I'm going to push for a Constitutional Amendment to enable us to arbitrarily execute anyone who proposes totalitarian policies like gun control. How 'bout DEM apples??
That is an outright lie, Galileo. Plain and simple. The people pushing the lawsuits publicly admitted that if they couldn't push draconian gun control then they'd break the gun industry with the "death of a thousand cuts" agenda of filing frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit designed to bankrupt the entire industry due to the financial costs of even fighting the suits in court. The protection in lawful commerce law just prevented such suits from being filed. Since the law was passed, there are STILL firearms businesses that have been held to account for negligent and unscrupulous actions because they actually could be proved to have been involved in negligent or even criminal actions. So much for the anti-gun LIE that gun manufacturers are somehow immune from legitimate litigation.
Don't need to. If Hillary would have won it would be a done deal. Now the left just needs to find a candidate to mop the floor with Trump and they will be doing two justices.
No, if Hillary had won and pushed the agenda you support we would now have a Civil War. We may end up with one anyway; I'm curious to see how the Left's "Day of Rage" goes in July. You advocate infringing upon my right to life, so why should I not advocate for infringing upon yours?
OH MY you don't realize how many democrats including some liberals realize the political suicide of anti gun legislation...It's why you BMers can't stop the train
if there is a civil war, the gun haters will be counting on OTHER People with guns to do the fighting for them. Of course many pro gun people will see the gun haters as the primary targets so I doubt anyone will be able to sit back and pretend to be noncombatants. when its all over, the anti gun movement in the USA would no longer exist, I suspect
Bushmaster and all "LICENSED" firearms manufacturers only sell firearms to Licensed firearms dealers, holders of a Federal Firearms License, an F.F.L., they do not sell firearms to Individuals or Felons or Criminals. This is evidence of sufficient precaution, those F.F.L. holders / Dealers only sell firearms to people that have passed a complete background check, also proof of sufficient precaution taken, So your post is a complete Fiction a bald faced Lie or Non truth.
