House Passes Bill to Protect Gun Industry From Lawsuits

[cKGunslinger]

NY Times Article

WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 - The House of Representatives delivered the gun lobby a cherished victory today, overwhelmingly approving a bill to protect gun manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits by crime victims.

The House passed the bill, 283 to 144, with the total reflecting considerable support from Democrats as well as the Republican majority. The Senate passed the bill, 65 to 31, in July, so the measure now goes to President Bush to be signed into law.

Supporters and opponents of the bill have described it in starkly different terms, with backers viewing it as a way to protect the industry from suits that could bankrupt honest businessmen, and opponents seeing it as a cave-in to the lobbying power of the National Rifle Association.

The House bill, identical to one passed by the Senate on July 29, would prohibit lawsuits against gun makers and distributors for misuse of their products during the commission of a crime. Fifty-nine Democrats joined 223 Republicans and one independent, Representative Bernard Sanders of Vermont, in voting for the bill. The 140 Democrats who voted against it were joined by four Republicans: Representatives Mike Castle of Delaware, Mark S. Kirk of Illinois, Ron E. Paul of Texas and Christopher Shays of Connecticut.

Nice to see some common-sense bills being pushed through Congress. I remember seeing something similiar in OT about a law preventing lawsuits against fast-food chains for weight/health problems as well. :thumbsup:


Edit: Previous thread (passes Senate)
Edit: OT Thread (more discussion)

 

[dmcowen674]

Blame the finger not the trigger

Blame the mouth not the cow

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Yep, it's nice when the government does something for the people . . . that line their pockets.

 

[zendari]

How does it matter whether its a cave-in to the NRA or not? It's still a good law.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Yep, it's nice when the government does something for the people . . . that line their pockets.

Common sense == Common sense. I don't care who gets rich, as long as we all benefit.

 

[Strk]

This is probably one of the few instances where a corporation (or industry, rather) should be protected from law suits. To use the old cliche, "guns don't kill people, people kill people."

 

[inhotep]

Originally posted by: Strk
This is probably one of the few instances where a corporation (or industry, rather) should be protected from law suits. To use the old cliche, "guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Yeah it's like blaming alcohol companies for drunk and driving.

 

[cKGunslinger]

So would those that have voted "no" care to explain why, being as that seems to be the minority opinion so far?

 

[1prophet]

There was a man who installed his brakes with the backing plates facing the rotor. He killed a pedestrian due to the brakes failing. He said he never did brakes before, should the family of the pedestrian sue the auto parts store for selling him the brakes?

There was another man who rewired his house and when he turned the power on the house he was electrocuted because he wired the circuit breakers incorrectly. Since he had no electrical training should his family sue Home Depot for selling him the electrical parts?

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: 1prophet

There was a man who installed his brakes with the backing plates facing the rotor. He killed a pedestrian due to the brakes failing. He said he never did brakes before, should the family of the pedestrian sue the auto parts store for selling him the brakes?

There was another man who rewired his house and when he turned the power on the house he was electrocuted because he wired the circuit breakers incorrectly. Since he had no electrical training should his family sue Home Depot for selling him the electrical parts?

No to both.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: 1prophet

There was a man who installed his brakes with the backing plates facing the rotor. He killed a pedestrian due to the brakes failing. He said he never did brakes before, should the family of the pedestrian sue the auto parts store for selling him the brakes?

There was another man who rewired his house and when he turned the power on the house he was electrocuted because he wired the circuit breakers incorrectly. Since he had no electrical training should his family sue Home Depot for selling him the electrical parts?

No, but they should both get slapped around a bit for being so stupid.

 

[smack Down]

I don't think they should be protected. Let them make their case in front of a judge and jury like the reset of use instead of making the case with bribes to law makers.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: 1prophet

There was a man who installed his brakes with the backing plates facing the rotor. He killed a pedestrian due to the brakes failing. He said he never did brakes before, should the family of the pedestrian sue the auto parts store for selling him the brakes?

That has actually happened, and its one of the reasons why small shops are so expensive these days. The cost of the insurance is insane for fear of lawsuits over scenarios like above.

 

[joshw10]

I would be afraid of legislation like this not being used to stop frivilous lawsuits but to also prevent lawsuits in the case of harm caused by defects in the product or manufacturer negligence

 

[Helenihi]

Originally posted by: joshw10
I would be afraid of legislation like this not being used to stop frivilous lawsuits but to also prevent lawsuits in the case of harm caused by defects in the product or manufacturer negligence

Well you shouldn't be worried because it doesn't apply to product defect lawsuits.

 

[Helenihi]

Originally posted by: smack Down
I don't think they should be protected. Let them make their case in front of a judge and jury like the reset of use instead of making the case with bribes to law makers.

The point is that even if all 50 states agreed that this was stupid and you shouldn't be sued, all it would take is one courtroom with a praticularly stupid jury to get wound up about some kid killed in a gang war and suddenly one, or many, gun manufacturers is out of business. Hell, they probably don't even have to get to a verdict, many of them are small companies that can barely afford to defend themselves in a lengthy trial.


This just clarifies that gun manufacturers aren't liable if they don't do anything wrong. This is hardly groundbreaking and is no different from the government saying you can't be sued if you don't do anything wrong. Which is basically the situation now. They are being treated the same as you, and will only go in front of a jury when they do something wrong, just like you. They can't use this to defend themselves if they make a gun with illegal features, or if they make a defective product.


And why do you have to talk about bribes? Why is it so crazy to think that people may have done this because its a good idea? Why is it only bribes or special interests when its a decision you don't like? Why did almost half the democrats in the house back this if its such an evil one sided bill?

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Helenihi

Originally posted by: smack Down
I don't think they should be protected. Let them make their case in front of a judge and jury like the reset of use instead of making the case with bribes to law makers.

The point is that even if all 50 states agreed that this was stupid and you shouldn't be sued, all it would take is one courtroom with a praticularly stupid jury to get wound up about some kid killed in a gang war and suddenly one, or many, gun manufacturers is out of business. Hell, they probably don't even have to get to a verdict, many of them are small companies that can barely afford to defend themselves in a lengthy trial.


This just clarifies that gun manufacturers aren't liable if they don't do anything wrong. This is hardly groundbreaking and is no different from the government saying you can't be sued if you don't do anything wrong. Which is basically the situation now. They are being treated the same as you, and will only go in front of a jury when they do something wrong, just like you. They can't use this to defend themselves if they make a gun with illegal features, or if they make a defective product.


And why do you have to talk about bribes? Why is it so crazy to think that people may have done this because its a good idea? Why is it only bribes or special interests when its a decision you don't like? Why did almost half the democrats in the house back this if its such an evil one sided bill?

So first you say it gives them special protection and yet you still try and claim that it doesn't give them special protect.

Sorry by bribes I ment campaing contrubtion and gifts.

 

[Helenihi]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Helenihi

Originally posted by: smack Down
I don't think they should be protected. Let them make their case in front of a judge and jury like the reset of use instead of making the case with bribes to law makers.

The point is that even if all 50 states agreed that this was stupid and you shouldn't be sued, all it would take is one courtroom with a praticularly stupid jury to get wound up about some kid killed in a gang war and suddenly one, or many, gun manufacturers is out of business. Hell, they probably don't even have to get to a verdict, many of them are small companies that can barely afford to defend themselves in a lengthy trial.


This just clarifies that gun manufacturers aren't liable if they don't do anything wrong. This is hardly groundbreaking and is no different from the government saying you can't be sued if you don't do anything wrong. Which is basically the situation now. They are being treated the same as you, and will only go in front of a jury when they do something wrong, just like you. They can't use this to defend themselves if they make a gun with illegal features, or if they make a defective product.


And why do you have to talk about bribes? Why is it so crazy to think that people may have done this because its a good idea? Why is it only bribes or special interests when its a decision you don't like? Why did almost half the democrats in the house back this if its such an evil one sided bill?

So first you say it gives them special protection and yet you still try and claim that it doesn't give them special protect.

Sorry by bribes I ment campaing contrubtion and gifts.

So you're illiterate or what?

 

[Rainsford]

I think it's a good idea, but while it's a good start, I have doubts of it ever going farther than protecting industries with huge lobbies. Pointless lawsuits are a huge problem, and while I'm glad ANYONE is protected, I don't think this represents a victory for those of us who believe the legal system is being misused so much as it is typical lobby behavior. Still good, but I'd like to see this go even farther.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I hear one amendment that was defeated would have outlawed the purchase of armor-piercing bullets.

According to industry financial statements, they aren't worried at all about "frivolous" or "meritous" lawsuits.

I for one don't really care. Just another illustration that Congress serves special interest not the public interest.

No big deal . . . a bunch of fat, poor, undereducated Americans with firearms . . . woohoo!

 

[rickn]

seems plausible to me. The bill for Fast Food, that one is really good. Dumb fatasses should not be suing McDonalds cuz they got fat.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I hear one amendment that was defeated would have outlawed the purchase of armor-piercing bullets.

Bullets are arms too...

According to industry financial statements, they aren't worried at all about "frivolous" or "meritous" lawsuits.

So I guess they wouldnt have any motive to lobby for this would they?

I for one don't really care. Just another illustration that Congress serves special interest not the public interest.

I thought they werent worried about it?

No big deal . . . a bunch of fat, poor, undereducated Americans with firearms . . . woohoo!

Thats mature, toss a bunch of labels out to demean those you don't agree with... You cold have saved the BS and just gotten straight to your bigotry.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: rickn
seems plausible to me. The bill for Fast Food, that one is really good. Dumb fatasses should not be suing McDonalds cuz they got fat.

I agree . . . unless of course companies advertise food as being inherently healthy (or not too unhealthy). Truth in advertising gets you a pass in my book.

I think gun merchants are a little different.

 

[Zebo]

This was a frivilous lawsuit (aka going after those with deep pockets instead of those responsible) if I ever seen one. Glad to see lots of Dems got behind signing this bill too.

If gun has a weak breach and blows your face off then it's the gun manufactues fault not some drug dealer doing a drive by.

These suits were purley modivated as a back door, unconsitutional and undemocratic way at gun abolition. Since the gun grabbers can't do it though thier elected reps they want to sue manufactures out of biz so we have an essentail gun ban since no one will make them, too costly.

 

[Caminetto]