He has realized that his previous position was wrong, and now has changed that position. That's all there is to it.

...as is your answer since it doesn't really address anything. Do you think gun manufacturers should be held liable if their products are used in crimes despite everything else in the situation being legal?

Each situation is different, which is why we have courts and lawsuits. Immunity is a bad idea, generally, for almost all situations where a tort case might be brought. Let the court or jury decide. That's my opinion.

I don't like immunity laws in general.

"However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products are held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligence when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime."

I'm not trying to badger or anything, I'm just really curious about what people's limits of liability are and if they go further than the PLCAA already does.

the courts. That's my opinion, and has always been my opinion. Immunity by law is a very dangerous concept, and one that exists in many areas, but should not.

eom

That's why we have civil courts. In them, all of the particulars of a case are laid out so a decision can be made with regard to liability. Your riddle has no simple answer, which is why a blanket immunity law that exempts manufacturers from such lawsuits is wrong.

Riddles are generally useless when it comes to complex issues. Take such cases to court.

eom

It's called a "product liability warning label." Failing to label against misuse of a product exposes a manufacturer to liability for its misuse.

If there was no label on the gun saying, "Not to be used for killing human beings," then the manufacturer can be held liable for it's use in killing human beings. Similar to children's wear that is labeled, "Do not launder while child is wearing garment," which prevents you from tossing your kid in the washing machine.

eom

Are you kidding? Have you looked at a car lately? There are warnings all over it, and the owner's manual is more than half warnings.

Have you bought a step ladder recently? There are no fewer than twenty safety warnings printed on it.

Everything, EVERYTHING, has product liability warnings on it. I bought a coffee cup that had a tag on it warning me that it might contain beverages hot enough to burn me.

They all stress - Safety - Safety - Safety.

More interested in being contentious than in having a conversation. Okay, you win, I am wrong and you are right, so please go play your "you are wrong" game with someone else.

eom

Or for the last say 50 years?

But Sanders decided to exempt gun-makers.

Not defective manufacturing.

Before they are ever manufactured and sold.

The very design, not just end result products that have already been manufactured, need to be safe.

Every firearm I know has some kind of safety. The primary one being the user. Just like a car, a weapon can be used improperly.

You want to ban guns, go ahead and try to do that. And good luck with it. But within the parameters of the law, a gun has an inherent use that is potentially unsafe.

As long as the safety precautions work, and as long a a gun doesn't do things like explode in the user's hand or shoot bullets backward, it is legally safe.

What it is aimed at is a separate matter.

eom

And the manufacturers are adding more from the past ones. Magazine well linterlocks, drop testing and loaded chamber indicators for just a few.

...Big Tobacco?

It's not like they're entirely free to do whatever they want:

"However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products are held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligence when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime."

...the dangers of smoking are well-known enough at this point.

...holding the manufacturer liable for their intended use is also a bad idea. Gun manufacturers and dealers are still liable for sales they know are meant for criminal activities or sold to people who shouldn't have them. Just curious, what is the limit of liability in your eyes?

Sell to the public.

Can't have corporate legal giveaways for just one industry. Or even just two.

I stand corrected.

Hell, maybe three isn't enough. Somebody is sure to come with yet another industry in need of such protections.

Are they responsible when a customer downloads child pornography?

eom

Why give any industry blanket immunity?

eom

Civil courts, when properly used, are one of the few remaining venues in America where the powerless and the powerful are on the same level. It is Republicans in state legislatures and at the federal level who are always laboring to restrict access to the civil courts.


That that proposition is debatable with those who claim the label progressive absolutely astounds me.

eom

Guns in the hands of good guys, i.e., responsible folks should be essentially unrestricted.

eom

Anything we can do to keep guns out of the hands out of irresponsible people is a step in the right direction. We owe it to the victims of gun violence and we owe it to future generations to protect them from being victims of gun violence.

As for criminals - nothing will ever completely stop or eliminate illegal markets.

eom

...which, if you just read the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article, you would know:

"However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products are held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligence when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime."

Deliberately abused by SLAAP suits to try and bankrupt them.

Was proven to have lied over many years unlike firearms manufacturers that by law can not sell to the general public. Should we allow them to sell your the general public like almost any other manufacturer can?

By all means let's treat them the same, just as you want.

Misled the public about the danger of their product, were sued, and lost. Are you claiming that people don't understand the danger of a firearm?

We are not as smart as him.

No issues with the legislation. It is not COMPLETE immunity as you has found during your research. Some without that information are being mislead.

back to 1 percent of firearm dealers according to a 2000 study of ATF data at Northeastern U.

That statistic indicates that a relative few gun dealers specialize in supplying arms to criminals. Criminal gangs could be very lucrative repeat customers, since they must replace firearms already used in crimes and dumped to try to avoid getting caught.

Arms manufacturers who supply these high-crime dealers could have been prosecuted in some states before 2005. But, because of Bernie Sanders and other PLCAA supporters, such prosecutions now are virtually impossible everywhere.

IMO, Bernie's lack of support among urban minorities is no surprise, because he has blood on his hands.

Can only sell to federally selected and approved wholesalers. It is the federal government's job to vet them, not the manufacturer. By the way, this is the only industry held to that standard, should they be treated like all others?

Actually, it's nobody's job anymore, if it ever was. The PLCAA effectively removes liability from manufacturers for selling to high-crime dealers.

And the 2003 Tiahrt rider and its reinforcements since then prevent the ATF data from being studied the way it was 15 years ago. See, for example, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/10/AR2007071001912.html

...not a manufacturer problem.

And found liable, just look at Badger guns.