Regardless of what you believe the outcome of such a lawsuit should be, should someone Constitutionally be permitted to sue for any reason, specifically in relation to victims of gun violence and firearms manufacturers? Where does the Constitution address the right to file lawsuits, and what does it specify regarding suing over a matter that has already been settled in a previous case? While gun liability has been a decisive topic, few have discussed the Constitutionality of the subject.
In simple, uncomplicated, easy to understand terms, indeed they should not. The sale of firearms is strictly regulated by federal law. Firearms manufacturers are only allowed to provide firearms to federally licensed dealers, who have current and valid business licenses authorizing them to engage in the business of selling firearms to the general public. The only ones said dealers are legally allowed to do business with are those who have no disqualifying criminal record that would prohibit them from legally possessing a firearm. They play no knowing part in criminals acquiring firearms, unless they are deliberately engaged in illegal activity which would earn them a felony conviction and loss of business license. Unless there is undeniable proof that either the manufacturers were intentionally supplying firearms to those who lack a valid business license, or if said dealers were knowingly supplying firearms to those who could not legally possess them, they have done nothing wrong, and should not be held responsible for the criminal actions of others. The united states constitution says nothing about the public having any right to file suit against another private entity for some perceived wrongdoing. There is no constitutional right to sue.
So from where do the people derive the right to sue? And would the federal government be overstepping its Constitutional bounds by banning the filing of suits on specific cases? And if the Supreme Court interprets a law, are future similar cases dropped? For instance, if the Court ruled that all firearms manufacturers are not liable for violence committed by means of firearms they sold (barring negligence), would people still be allowed to attempt to sue for such a case? Excuse my lack of Constitutional knowledge, as I'm only in high school and haven't taken a course on Constitutional law in years.
People already have the right to sue "for any reason". The law and the courts decide on the permissibility of said suite based on the reason in question.
Do you know of any other industry that can be sued for illegal use of their product? How about baseball bats, knives, poisons... etc
I honestly don't know. I understand that such lawsuits would likely fail, but I have no idea if one would be allowed to sue those industries for illegal use of their products in the first place.
If you filed a suit against Ford because someone stole a Mustang, ran a light, and killed your wife and kids, it would be thrown out of court.
But people still withhold the right to sue for that reason, correct? Would the federal government be allowed to step in and say, "Okay, no is allowed to sue car manufacturers for illegal use of their cars?"
How many times has Budweiser been sued for DUI's? If I beat you to death with a Baseball bat, should your family be able to sue Louisville Slugger? What does common sense tell you?
Common sense tells me that such a case has never made it far, but not that no one is allowed to sue for that reason. But anyway, the questions has been answered, so thanks everyone!
Well, what was done by the very people who wrote the US Constitution? What did they do to the people who used guns to commit violent felonies back after 1789? Answer, they hanged them after a fair and speedy trial found them guilty. Now, did any of them take any of the gun makers to court for them to face liability for making such terrible dangerous things like a Kentucky Rifle or a Brown Bess musket? No, that would have been as stupid and laughable then as it is now.
You shouldn't sue gun companies for a misuse of a gun for the same reason you shouldn't sue Chevy for the drunk driver that mowed down a group of kids.
The reason the protection of lawful commerce in arms act was needed in the first place is because numerous firearms manufacturers were targeted for lawsuits over the unlawful use of their products in the commission of various crimes, the suits alleging that they knowingly and willfully contributed to the problem by supplying a lawful product to lawful dealers, whose actions are tightly regulated by federal law. No other industry has been subjected to such frivolous lawsuits for their product being misused, so there has never been reason to craft such legislation for them.
Perhaps families of people that were unable to arm and defend themselves in states with overly restrictive gun laws that have been killed or those that have been severely injured by criminals should be able to sue their state governments for denying them their constitutional rights as accomplices to the crime.
It has been tried unsuccessfully before, with courts siding with state governments to regulate the sale of firearms as they see fit. The sole exceptions were Heller and McDonald eliminating total prohibitions from the list of options.
More than one state has passed or Is considering legislation to allow suing business owners if they post signage that no guns allowed and a patron is injured in an attack on business premises... https://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/tennessee-gun-free-zones-bill/ http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/02/robert-farago/gun-free-zones-who-is-liable/
When Hillary gets in she will stack the SCOTUS so any lawsuits get approved and the gun co.'s are bankrupt. The only guns the resurrected co's will be able to make are smartguns that can be licensed and turned on and off remotely like a cell phone. Non smartguns will be outlawed. That is how they will get round the 2A...a smartgun world only. - - - Updated - - - Makes sense, but Hillary hates guns and likes cars.
There is no chance the 2nd Amendment can be repealed whatever she does, the votes will never be there in congress for it and more to the point a three quarter majority of states require for a repeal would no be remotely likely. It would be unlikely that Heller vs DC will be over turned, there will be considerable case history built in the lower courts based on the ruling and historically such a reinterpretation would be unlikely. However, it is possible the door left open in Heller vs DC for a ruling that certain restrictions or regulations might be Constitutional could happen with a liberal court. But, such rulings would be limited in scope at the federal level. It would be likely that those states hostile to guns, about 12-13 would further pass more restrictive laws. But, many states have been embracing Constitutional carry or trending toward more gun friendly laws and it's not likely there would be that much impact with their current direction. If SCOTUS ruled that gun manufacturers could be sued it would open a Pandora's box for all other industries. This was recognized by Congress when they passed a law prohibiting that possibility and SCOTUS Might be able to say, though it's not likely, it might be Constitutional to sue them, but that wouldn't change the law that prohibits it...SCOTUS doesn't make laws. Hllary can certainly do damage, but she will not be able to ban guns.
Private businesses are not the same thing as state governments. Constitutional rights cannot be deprived by private actors, only by government and those directly associated with it.
That may not be specifically true if a person or business is determined to be a 'state actor'. http://www.nyclu.org/oped/column-applying-constitution-private-actors-new-york-law-journal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_actor It might be argued that a state that allows businesses to deny 2A rights on their property are acting as indirect state actors. Whether that arguement would work is beyond my pay grade. My intent in my post was to flip the liability arguement, in a 'what is good for the Gander is good for the Goose' example. Pro gun control advocates are continually throwing mud at the proverbial wall to see what sticks, regardless of common sense. They will pass any legislation if they can that restricts people from their 2A rights in many cases knowing full well that legislation would fail in a Constitutional test at the Supreme Court, but knowing they might just catch a break with a liberal bench or that it will take considerable time for that test to happen. In the case of suing gun manufactures for a non defective product that is used to criminals injure or kill some one some how they can't understand that if applied against gun manufacturers the same logic could be applied to any product by any manufacturers used to injure someone. Anyone making knives, hammers, screwdrivers, (now trucks) or anything that can be used to intentionally injure someone would be open to liability. Flipping the arguement, to see what the proverbial shotgun spray hits from the gun rights perspective using the same logic suggests if someone is denied the natural right to defend themselves, they or their families should be able to sue if they are killed or injured. I do think, the liability for denying someone the ability to excersize their 2A right to self defense, followed by the failure to protect someone from death or injury is a topic that is worth exploring.
The part our founders (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up on was not including a clause that stated "any dumb (*)(*)(*)(*) is barred." The same wouldn't apply to any manufacturer of any other product, so why would it apply to guns? Can one sue Apple if a hacker used one of their products to hack ones files? Can one sue a paper company for producing the paper that bad news for them.was printed on? Sounds just as stupid as holding gun manufacturers responsible.
I know they made 5L jerry cans illegal in some states because it didn't have a device which supposedly stopped the flame going back down the tube when idiots poured gasoline onto a fire. Seems to me if someone used a 5L can of gas to douse his feet and set himself alight, that he could successfully lobby to either sue the manufacturer or have the product prohibited by the fascist state.
I am all for stamping on the crown of the muzzle of every gun the safety message, 'if you are reading this, don't pull the trigger'.
Perhaps so. But arguing that the manager of a grocery, hardware, or convenience store is operating in a state capacity, is a difficult argument to successfully make.
