Gun Manufacturers Shielded From Criminal Use of Legal Prducts: Common Sense Prevails

PittsburghAfterDark

CAGiversary!
Congress OKs Gun Industry Lawsuit Shield

20 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Congress gave the gun lobby its top legislative priority Thursday, passing a bill protecting the firearms industry from massive crime-victim lawsuits. President Bush said he will sign it.

"Our laws should punish criminals who use guns to commit crimes, not law-abiding manufacturers of lawful products," Bush said in a statement.

The House voted 283-144 to send the bill to the president after supporters, led by the National Rifle Association, proclaimed it vital to protect the industry from being bankrupted by huge jury awards. Opponents, waging a tough battle against growing public support for the legislation, called it proof of the gun lobby's power over the Republican-controlled Congress.

"This legislation will make the unregulated gun industry the most pampered industry in America," said Kristen Rand, director of the Violence Policy Center.

Under the measure, as many as 20 pending lawsuits by local governments against the industry would be dismissed. The Senate passed the bill in July.

The bill's passage was the NRA's top legislative priority and would give Bush and his Republican allies on Capitol Hill a rare victory at a time when some top GOP leaders are under indictment or investigation.

"Lawsuits seeking to hold the firearms industry responsible for the criminal and unlawful use of its products are brazen attempts to accomplish through litigation what has not been achieved by legislation and the democratic process," House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., told his colleagues.

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, did not vote. He is in Texas in connection with his indictment in an alleged scheme to violate state election law.

Propelled by GOP election gains and the incidents of lawlessness associated with the passing of Hurricane Katrina, support for the bill has grown since a similar measure passed the House last year and was killed in the Senate.

Horrific images of people without the protection of public safety in New Orleans made a particular impression on viewers who had never before felt unsafe, according to the gun lobby.

"Americans saw a complete collapse of the government's ability to protect them," said Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president.

"That burnt in, those pictures of people standing there defending their lives and defending their property and their family," he added, "where the one source of comfort was a firearm."

With support from four new Republicans this session of Congress, the bill passed the Senate for the first time in July. House passage never was in doubt because it had 257 co-sponsors, far more than the 218 needed to pass.

The bill's authors say it still would allow civil suits against individual parties who have been found guilty of criminal wrongdoing by the courts.

Opponents say the strength of the bill's support is testament to the influence of the gun lobby. If the bill had been law when the relatives of six victims of convicted Washington-area snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo sued the gun dealer from which they obtained their rifle, the dealer would not have agreed to pay the families and victims $2.5 million.

"It is shameful that Republicans in Congress are pushing legislation that guarantees their gun-dealing cronies receive special treatment and are above the law," said Rep. Robert Wexler (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif.

Bush has said he supports the bill, which would prohibit lawsuits against the firearms industry for damages resulting from the unlawful use of a firearm or ammunition. Gun makers and dealers still would be subject to product liability, negligence or breach of contract suits, the bill's authors say.

Democrats and Republicans alike court the NRA at election time, and the bill has garnered bipartisan support. But the firearms industry still gave 88 percent of its campaign contributions, or $1.2 million, to Republicans in the 2004 election cycle.

Gun control advocates, meanwhile, gave 98 percent of their contributions, or $93,700, to Democrats that cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The bill is S. 397.

Link

Well thank you Congress for some common sense. Imagine car makers being sued for police chases, drunk drivers, angry exes running over their significant others. Similarly this could be applied to other murder weapons knives, bottles, rope etc.

I fail to see how makers of a legal product can be held criminaly liable for illegal acts commited by said legal product.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']
Well thank you Congress for some common sense. Imagine car makers being sued for police chases, drunk drivers, angry exes running over their significant others. Similarly this could be applied to other murder weapons knives, bottles, rope etc.

I fail to see how makers of a legal product can be held criminaly liable for illegal acts commited by said legal product.[/QUOTE]

While I agree with this article, I still have questions about this bill. If it simply protects manufacturers from being sued for how their products are used, then I whole heartedly agree with it. You make a good point, why should a manufacturer be held responsible for the criminal misuse of their products, you gave some good examples.

Anyway, my big question is that since it mentions dealers, how does that work? Let's say a dealer illegally sells a gun to someone who shouldn't have it (minor, parole, etc.) does this law mean that they can't be sued for it? I know they will still be held criminally responsible (or is that part of this law too?) but will they still be able to be sued under tort law? That's pretty much my biggest concern about this law, other than that I pretty much agree with it.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']What if the gun were to backfire, or malfunction in some way?[/QUOTE]

From what I've seen, gun manufacturers aren't exempt from this. They're expected to make "safe" products, just like anyone else.
 
In answer to your questions. If a gun is faultily manufactured and for example is defective they are still liable for injury or poor product design. Standard product liability would still apply. However they cannot be sued by a robbery victim who is shot because they made the gun.

This does not offer gun sellers protections or exemptions nor should it. If they are backing off of background checks on handguns, selling to convicted felons or running afoul of state (This is also a states issue, not a federal issue.) regulations selling firearms they would not be shielded from the scope of this action. However I am not aware of any state law in the country where you or I over the age of 18 can't walk into a sporting goods store, Wal Mart or hunting store and buy a long rifle off the shelf with no waiting period or background check, you just need legal ID as proof of age. Now obviously cities like NY have exceptions to this.

After stuff like Columbine and who knows how many other well publicized firearm events this was completely necessary. It's not the fault of a gun maker the DC area sniper attacks happened. Nor is it the gun makers fault if someone is shot accidently in the woods deer or bear hunting. That's what this is designed to protect.

Last but not least after Katrina the NRA now has an irrefutable instance where government, society and law enforcement completely failed leaving citizens defenseless against criminals. I know many people were upset about private security and individuals protecting private property and themselves but tough shit. If the government can't protect public safety with 100% reliabilty (Which they can never do even under normal everyday conditions.) firearms in the hands of private owners remains essential.
 
You're right, with the legality of firearms today, gun manufacturers SHOULD be shielded from these type of lawsuits. However, current laws on regulation, age, criminal records, etc. need to continue to be enforced. I don't think you'll see too many people here disagreeing with the topic of this thread.
 
[quote name='evanft']The law is just common sense, but I imagine there are better things Congress could do.[/QUOTE]

That is basically my opinion. I don't think they should be sued if their product is legal and they don't do anything suggesting or advocating illegal use. But, at the same time, it's not like I wouldn't laugh at their companies misery.
 
[quote name='Drocket']Now if only we can get something similar for video games...[/QUOTE]
Right, that's my problem. Why focus just on guns, and give them special treatment? No company should be sued if their product is wrongly used (barring malfunctions etc, as has been mentioned).
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Ooooooh Yeeeeeeesssss My Undertayker Will Defeat Hulk Hoooooogan![/QUOTE]

WHATCHA GONNA DO WHEN HULKAMANIA RUNS WILD ON YOU!!!

Awesome.
 
I hurts me to type this but i agree with PAD's original post.

BTW, all that "Complete Mayhem" during Katrina reporting has been proven false even by Fox News. Roaming Gangs,Babies being raped etc......
 
True, but on the other hand there were numerous neighborhood militias whose mere show of arms sent a very powerful message of move along to anyone thinking of looting, robbing or squatting in still occupied homes and neighborhoods.

See previous posts where I've already stated the horror stories coming out of NOLA were exaggerated to flat out false.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']Right, that's my problem. Why focus just on guns, and give them special treatment? No company should be sued if their product is wrongly used (barring malfunctions etc, as has been mentioned).[/QUOTE]

The reason, if I may be so condescending (because it's that obvious) is related to the power of the gun lobby, as well as existing precedents of lawsuits (IIRC, there was a class-action suit against gun manufacturers by the relatives of the DC snipers' victims, in which the gun manufacturers had to pay a high - hundred million or higher - penalty to the families).

Seeing as how (1) to the best of my knowledge, there is no "video game lobby," and (2) there isn't an existing precedent of video game makers (stores, whathaveyou) paying out settlements to "victims," there will not likely be a "video game maker protection bill" anytime soon. While the bill makes sense, it is, ultimately, corporate favortism.

I do know, however, a corporation that should be sued: depending on the circumstances, the phramaceutical industry (I don't know which specific company) or the business from which this person gets their prescriptions. To avoid getting too personal on an internet message board, someone passed away very recently as a result of complications due to their existing condition that they have had for roughly 30 years. Their drugstore did not have one crucial drug in stock for *two weeks* and did not aid in getting it from another store (if that's even possible), or in any way help in making sure this person got what they needed to live. So, he did not. They are, in my opinion (and keep in mind I'm clueless to the legal process) directly responsible for his passing.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The reason, if I may be so condescending (because it's that obvious) is related to the power of the gun lobby, as well as existing precedents of lawsuits (IIRC, there was a class-action suit against gun manufacturers by the relatives of the DC snipers' victims, in which the gun manufacturers had to pay a high - hundred million or higher - penalty to the families).

Seeing as how (1) to the best of my knowledge, there is no "video game lobby," and (2) there isn't an existing precedent of video game makers (stores, whathaveyou) paying out settlements to "victims," there will not likely be a "video game maker protection bill" anytime soon. While the bill makes sense, it is, ultimately, corporate favortism.

I do know, however, a corporation that should be sued: depending on the circumstances, the phramaceutical industry (I don't know which specific company) or the business from which this person gets their prescriptions. To avoid getting too personal on an internet message board, someone passed away very recently as a result of complications due to their existing condition that they have had for roughly 30 years. Their drugstore did not have one crucial drug in stock for *two weeks* and did not aid in getting it from another store (if that's even possible), or in any way help in making sure this person got what they needed to live. So, he did not. They are, in my opinion (and keep in mind I'm clueless to the legal process) directly responsible for his passing.[/QUOTE]

www.theesa.com
Look to the ESA if you want to see the videogame lobby. But you're dead on about no settlements. I wouldn't call it corporate favortism, because anti-gun activists are attempting to get the companies shut down due to crimes committed with their product. It's a backdoor attempt to eliminate the second ammendment.
http://www.theesa.com

I'm sorry to hear about your loss.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I do know, however, a corporation that should be sued: depending on the circumstances, the phramaceutical industry (I don't know which specific company) or the business from which this person gets their prescriptions. To avoid getting too personal on an internet message board, someone passed away very recently as a result of complications due to their existing condition that they have had for roughly 30 years. Their drugstore did not have one crucial drug in stock for *two weeks* and did not aid in getting it from another store (if that's even possible), or in any way help in making sure this person got what they needed to live. So, he did not. They are, in my opinion (and keep in mind I'm clueless to the legal process) directly responsible for his passing.[/QUOTE]

You are absolutely right. The pharmaceutical cartels are just like the anti-capitalist, legalized price-fixing industries of the diamond and record cartels. The difference is that pharmaceutical companies and their cronies in politics and health insurance are killing people through negligence. Near me in Bethesda, the plan to import drugs from Canada that got them so much attention during the election is quietly being killed.

I know about these issues too because I have a close relative that needs medicine that must be refrigerated to stay fresh (and the disease she has is not her fault - it was with her at birth). Well, the health insurance company decided to cut funding for her picking it up at the local retail store (where trained phamacists handle it and double check her prescription) and instead started funding a "UPS with ice packs" option only - she doesn't know what day in the "time window" that it will come, and tough luck for her if she works late, gets home, and the medicine is ruined. Pharamceutical and health insurance companies always cry poverty while never missing a profit - it's disgusting that the "christians" in power in Washington DC turn a quick corporate lobbyist buck while these companies prey on the sick and the weak through increasing deregulation and bad medicinial practices.
 
In relation to bitching about drug prices and availability. I know several older family friends that receive free prescriptions from **INSERT DRUG COMAPNY HERE** due to having demonstratable low or fixed incomes. Every single drug company of note has programs for people with little or no income. When I lost my job I applied for one because I couldn't afford COBRA coverage at $300 a month or the $150 a month out of pocket prescription. It took 2-3 weeks to get approved and 90 day supplies mailed to me. In the interim my doctor just gave me sample packs.

I know some of the cancer related drugs that need to be shipped overnight on dry ice, refrigerated etc. can run into the thousands of dollars. However there are programs to pick up the slack if you can't afford it and insurance won't cover it. All you need to do is find out who makes the drug, check their website. As an example here is Glaxo Smith Kline's.
 
That is completely unrelated to (1) the availability of a particular drug (my greivance) or (2) insurance companies' changing policies to favor a more uncertain method of prescription provision (having control over picking it up yourself versus having it delivered).
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I know some of the cancer related drugs that need to be shipped overnight on dry ice, refrigerated etc. can run into the thousands of dollars. However there are programs to pick up the slack if you can't afford it and insurance won't cover it. All you need to do is find out who makes the drug, check their website. As an example here is Glaxo Smith Kline's. [/QUOTE]

Yes, and when you get these products delivered you need to rely on Joe Factory Worker sending out the right medication, instead of going to your local pharmacist who knows your conditions and who is more likely to have backup supplies when the distributor makes a mistake.

Listen, if I get a copy of "Hot Shots Golf 3" instead of "Tiger Woods '06", it's really no big deal, as I can easily spot the problem and wait to get a refund. However if I'm waiting on heart medication that I need on a cyclical basis, I am uneasy about relying on Joe Factory Worker to be competent enough to send the correct prescriptions out (not to mention catching complex interactions that could result from taking two different medicines - an oversight that doctors and specialists make all the time)

The pharmaceutical drug industry is rife with beauracratic waste and payoffs to politicians/middlemen, yet whenever they look to cut costs it is always some shortcut that is another detriment to the consumer's safety. The RIAA may be suing a segment of their customers, but drug and health insurance companies are killing them through negligence.
 
Forget shipping errors: the bigger danger that I would be worried about is that there have been accusations (so far unproven, admittedly) that the drug companies have shipped old/expired drugs to people using their free programs. If it turns out to be true, its not too hard to figure out why it would happen: these would be pills that otherwise would have to be thrown away. By giving them away, though, the drug companies would get massive tax breaks for what otherwise would be trash.
 
bread's done
Back
Top