read this
- Thread starter alan
- Start date
- Status
Sorry, but I can't agree. While preventing worthless suits of this type would benefit gun manufacturers and (indirectly) shooters, it is still an illigitimate use of legislative power. Congress has no authority to make the law, even if it would be in our better interest.
Pendragon
Member
This is EXACTLY the reason the commerce clause exists in the Constitution. It gives Congress the authority to pass laws that keep one state or entity from preying on legitimate businesses.
The law in question does not ban all lawsuits against gun makers. The main thing it does is say that you cannot sue on the basis of the gun being defective just because the "wrong" person was shot with the gun.
Congress is SUPPOSED to define what kinds of things are actionable and what kinds of things are not - with this law, they are just exercising their constitutional authority to state that certain things simply are off the table when it comes to litigation.
If someone is hurt because a sear is defective and the gun has a mechanical failure and goes off, those people can still sue.
However, the fact that a gun functions regardless of the moral intent of the user is not a legal basis for making a claim against the maker or seller of the gun as long as they followed all applicable laws.
Gun types criticising this law just drive me crazy :banghead:
The law in question does not ban all lawsuits against gun makers. The main thing it does is say that you cannot sue on the basis of the gun being defective just because the "wrong" person was shot with the gun.
Congress is SUPPOSED to define what kinds of things are actionable and what kinds of things are not - with this law, they are just exercising their constitutional authority to state that certain things simply are off the table when it comes to litigation.
If someone is hurt because a sear is defective and the gun has a mechanical failure and goes off, those people can still sue.
However, the fact that a gun functions regardless of the moral intent of the user is not a legal basis for making a claim against the maker or seller of the gun as long as they followed all applicable laws.
Gun types criticising this law just drive me crazy :banghead:
alan
Member
Ian:
I believe that I understand, N0T agree with your thinking, however I also believe that you need to consider the failings of existing law, and such steps as are necessary to correct said failings. I've discussed this point with a couple of attorneys I'm acquainted with, I'm a nice fellow despite that, and both agreed on the following.
Respecting these suits brought against the firearms industry, it is necessary to defend each and every one, which costs a lot of money. All that the the antis have to do is to win one. The problem lies in and with the following. One would assume that the defendant's, the firearms industry would file counter suit against their antagonists, seeking at the very least, attorney's fees. Problem is that the industry would have to "prove" that the suits were baseless, vindictive and so forth and so on. Apparently, this is exceedingly hard to prove, possibly due to the fact that judges are lawyers and lawyers get to write and interpret the law too.
While you might find upsetting, action by The Congress that you think exceedes their authority, what price glory, given that if the anti's win in court, or drive the industry into bankruptcy, the announced goal of these suits, a couple of thinly capitolized firms have already gone under, where would it turn out that the greater harm had been done? If there is nobody commercially manufacturing, and distributing firearms, how do you plan to exercise your constitutional rights, and if it turned out that you already hasd all the guns you wanted, what of others?
I believe that I understand, N0T agree with your thinking, however I also believe that you need to consider the failings of existing law, and such steps as are necessary to correct said failings. I've discussed this point with a couple of attorneys I'm acquainted with, I'm a nice fellow despite that, and both agreed on the following.
Respecting these suits brought against the firearms industry, it is necessary to defend each and every one, which costs a lot of money. All that the the antis have to do is to win one. The problem lies in and with the following. One would assume that the defendant's, the firearms industry would file counter suit against their antagonists, seeking at the very least, attorney's fees. Problem is that the industry would have to "prove" that the suits were baseless, vindictive and so forth and so on. Apparently, this is exceedingly hard to prove, possibly due to the fact that judges are lawyers and lawyers get to write and interpret the law too.
While you might find upsetting, action by The Congress that you think exceedes their authority, what price glory, given that if the anti's win in court, or drive the industry into bankruptcy, the announced goal of these suits, a couple of thinly capitolized firms have already gone under, where would it turn out that the greater harm had been done? If there is nobody commercially manufacturing, and distributing firearms, how do you plan to exercise your constitutional rights, and if it turned out that you already hasd all the guns you wanted, what of others?
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
I agree with Ian.
However, I think that things have gotten so out of whack, legally speaking, that I'm willing to take any port in a storm.
However, I think that things have gotten so out of whack, legally speaking, that I'm willing to take any port in a storm.
alan
Member
Justin:
Just a thought, or question that I find myself curious about.
You wrote "I agree with Ian. However, I think that things have gotten so out of whack, legally speaking, that I'm willing to take any port in a storm."
Think for a moment on how things got so out of whack, how they might be restored to being "in whack", assuming that repair is possible, and what might be done to prevent the repair from being subverted, once made.
I have my own ideas, one of which revolves arond the absolute necessity of the citizenry tearing itself away from Monday Night Football, or whatever other "opiate" might at the moment, be in fashion. Also, that the people really must get away from voting the "straight ticket" be it Democratic or Republican.
Additiopnally, the answer that one gets to the following rhetorical question, silence, must change. The question is as follows. You and some of your neighbors, friends, co-workers, co-religionists or whatever have gotten together, and all and sundry are complaining as to various causes of angst. When they pause for breath, you ask the following. Re the cause of your complaint, whichever side of the issue you might be on, when did you last contact any relevant elected offical re whatever the particular issue might be? All to often, about the only answer you get will be blank stares, or the verbal equivalent thereof, which strikes me as particularly sad.
By the way, it seems as if S. 659, the Firarms Industry Immunity legislation, that is not it's formal title, you can erasily look that up, might face a fillibuster in The Senate. It currently has 52 co-sponsors, 60 votes necessary for cloture, shutting off debate. the 60 votes needed might not be there, which could kill the legislation, leaving only The House passed proposal, H.R. 1036. If The Democrats kill this legislation via a fillibuster, one wonders as to how the next elections will go, or do you think that the political types figure on the memory of voters being that short? Will; their guess prove correct?
Just a thought, or question that I find myself curious about.
You wrote "I agree with Ian. However, I think that things have gotten so out of whack, legally speaking, that I'm willing to take any port in a storm."
Think for a moment on how things got so out of whack, how they might be restored to being "in whack", assuming that repair is possible, and what might be done to prevent the repair from being subverted, once made.
I have my own ideas, one of which revolves arond the absolute necessity of the citizenry tearing itself away from Monday Night Football, or whatever other "opiate" might at the moment, be in fashion. Also, that the people really must get away from voting the "straight ticket" be it Democratic or Republican.
Additiopnally, the answer that one gets to the following rhetorical question, silence, must change. The question is as follows. You and some of your neighbors, friends, co-workers, co-religionists or whatever have gotten together, and all and sundry are complaining as to various causes of angst. When they pause for breath, you ask the following. Re the cause of your complaint, whichever side of the issue you might be on, when did you last contact any relevant elected offical re whatever the particular issue might be? All to often, about the only answer you get will be blank stares, or the verbal equivalent thereof, which strikes me as particularly sad.
By the way, it seems as if S. 659, the Firarms Industry Immunity legislation, that is not it's formal title, you can erasily look that up, might face a fillibuster in The Senate. It currently has 52 co-sponsors, 60 votes necessary for cloture, shutting off debate. the 60 votes needed might not be there, which could kill the legislation, leaving only The House passed proposal, H.R. 1036. If The Democrats kill this legislation via a fillibuster, one wonders as to how the next elections will go, or do you think that the political types figure on the memory of voters being that short? Will; their guess prove correct?
Tamara
Senior Member
Bruce H,
Click on his profile and find out.
Click on his profile and find out.
Sir Galahad
member
Lawsuits are just another way of people using government in robbing businesses. Then, after all the businesses leave the country to avoid lawsuits, high taxes, and, in some cases, totally asinine "reparations" lawsuits targeting businesses around prior to 1860, all we hear from the same "social justice" types is "there's no jobs, whine, whine..." Yeah, frivolous lawsuits are a "right" worth defending! After that, let's defend banning Oreo cookies. And, all together now, in your best whining voice:
"It's for the cheeeeeldreeennnnn!!!"
Yeah, frivolous lawsuits are a "right" worth defending! After that, let's defend banning Oreo cookies. And, all together now, in your best whining voice: "It's for the cheeeeeldreeennnnn!!!"
- Status