Bernie is absolutely right in opposing those lawsuits. The tort system was never intended to either circumvent the political process or to extract money from parties with no legitimate, direct responsibility for damage. Manufacturing a legal, non-defective product creates no (legitimate) liability for that product's misuse.

Weapons manufacturers never gave said there products were not potentially dangerous.

they have commissioned hundreds of studies that say that guns make people safer, hence they aren't dangerous.

And yet they were for selling an unsafe product.

and using them for political purposes.

We all feel for the victims of Sandy Hook and their families. Their tragedy and their pain is beyond imaginable.

In fact, we feel for them so much that we wouldn't dare use them as political bait.

Hillary Clinton, not so much. Sad.

What does that have to do with HRC?

She's relevant to the discussion.

She had her team do media blasts and did conference calls alerting the media about the press conference. That team Hillary set up.

I would never deny someone's right to speak out.

I don't think Bernie is perfect. If his votes on gun issues make you or anyone else uncomfortable to the point that they can't vote for him. I can except that.

But that's not my point. It's Hillary using people and issues as pawns and wedges.

she is supposed to be anointed by all the stupid little people. If she needs to scour the moral gutter and use victims of crime to make outlandish attacks on her opponent, well, that's just the cost of doing business in Hillary's world.

I've had meaningful conversations with a few here.

Trying to sue the manufacturer over their marketing of a gun which every state in the union, including CT., declares is perfectly legal doesn't make much sense.

Their complaint sure sounds like they should be blaming their legislatures for the legality of the gun, not Bushmaster or Bernie.

... is it assumes the issue on which the suit would be brought. It shows no faith in our legal system. It shows no imagination about things that could be sued about. What about plain old safety? I'm not sure about this, but I believe I heard that a gun company wanted to develop finger-print locks and had to drop it because of the NRA. It would be nice if we could sue them over this, like we sue pajama manufacturers over flame retardants.

a widow suing Volkswagon when her husband died as the driver in a drunken incident.

She was suing about him dying, not about whose fault it was, so alluded to safety features/the way the car was built etc.
(I browsed the decision VERY quickly).

What seemed somewhat strange/surprising about the complaint in Sandy Hook, is it is all about marketing, military-type weaponry, practical usage, capacity/caliber etc. - "negligence" along those lines - but no mention about safety-feature things like you mention, where they (IMO) might have a shot.

http://www.koskoff.com/In-the-News/Sandy-Hook-Families-Complaint.pdf


Arguably the issue here re:the PLCAA, is how the string of lawsuits was a suspected tactic of anti-gun groups to basically bankrupt the industry. NRA notion no doubt, but likely at least partly true. Others here brought up another good point how the cases were really about trying to get knowing manufacturers to police their own industry.


One thing the law did was codify this in federal law:

&quot 2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms."

... angle. I heard that ONCE in one of the debates. I think it's critical because it totally demolishes Sanders argument about holding manufacturers responsible for crimes with legally purchased guns. It's holding manufacturers responsible for actively putting them in the hands of the wrong people.

Yes, that's the Sandy Hook angle. I mentioned the safety angle only as an example. I couldn't remember (and didn't care, really) what the exact Sandy Hook suit was.

I do think that should be mentioned much more than it has been.

Sandy Hook plaintiffs think Bushmaster is liable cause they should know better than to sell ARs to the public, even legally.


On edit: re-read your post - sorry if that is what you were saying!

... I've put your post URL in at least 3 GDP threads. Hoping some folks will notice.

Cars are special to our economy they dont get immunity which would be ridiculous, same for groceries, and restaurants but guns are sacrosanct and who desired this the NRA this is indefensible

Ford if I go to a dealer and buy a car and then take it and run over bunch of kids on play ground? How is Ford suppose to stop this?

Ford doesn't get special protections against lawsuits. Neither should gun manufacturers. Calling for special protections of this nature for any industry is just about as far from progressive as you can get. I cannot fathom why ANY progressive would do this. This isn't left. This isn't center. This is far right wing wackadoodle.

Under which a gun manufacturer is liable for selling a legal product in a legal manner to a person permitted to own that product, which is then stolen and used to commit a crime. That's the type of lawsuit the PLCAA prevents, so tell my why you think a manufacturer should be liable in such circumstances.

on how it's progressive to give immunity to corporations against lawsuits? I never claimed anyone was legally liable for anything.

Take your time.

Take your time there, internet warrior!

Here's one to calm you down there, Skippy. And to show you the problem with your theory. Guess how automakers often defend liability lawsuits. Yep! They claim misuse of their product. Example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/30/business/lawsuits-this-year-s-model.html

By the way, you may not know this, but part of liability is being aware of a product's misuse and a company's responsibility of being aware and accounting for that possibility. Just so you know. A company can indeed be held liable for that, especially if they make an inherently dangerous product. I was careful to use a case where that aspect of the law was highlighted. It's in one of my responses.

In every other industry a person can sue. That doesn't mean they will win, but they have the right to sue. Not so the gun manufacturers.

The pros and cons of a specific suit are not in question here; in fact, bringing them up is a deflection. What is wrong is that the gun industry cannot be sued, period.

You are wrong, the "gun industry" can be sued. And your deflection doesn't change that fact. If you can't identify a reason for overturning the PLCAA just say so.

And here's an article from the Brady Campaign website telling cities just how they should sue gun manufacturers, which emphasizes the need for the PLCAA - http://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/city-lawsuits-review.pdf.

That doesn't address any point I've made.

based upon misuse of their product?

And, what does that even have to do with it? Do you think the ratio of success/failure of past lawsuits of a defendant somehow factors when considering the merit of a current lawsuit? And what if a defendant has never been sued before? Are they just automatically immune? I guess that means it's a great time to start a business with this new legal system!

Try again.

a product. Does anyone actually do that? Give me a list.

Seems to me it's the defendant who always makes that claim. It's a defense claim. Not a complainant's claim. That's why it's an issue solved in a court.

Pretty simple. People didn't sue Toyota and say in their claim, "We mashed on the breaks and panicked! Yep! We totally misused the product!" So, not going to find you a list of lawsuits claiming misuse, am I? People don't sue like that. So, claiming we need to reform tort law to prevent that is pretty stupid. What I will find is a bunch of automakers claiming that defense. So, why do they need to be protected from being sued at all? They can defend themselves just fine.

Not the plaintiffs who sued. They didn't say, "Wer'e suing because we mashed down on our gas pedals when we panicked!"

And yeah. About that http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/autos/2010-05-20-exponent20_CV_N.htm

with a gun and killing people?

and you and others are claiming they shouldn't be able to. And when argued with, you brought up car companies? So...

Groceries? If someone threw an orange at you and killed you, do you think you should sue the orange growers or the grocery store? Or the PERSON who THREW the orange?
THAT is the logical equivalence.

Or if you are talking about being POISONED at a restaurant. . . . then suing the restaurant. That is something else. That would be LOGICALLY like if the gun you bought misfired because of a manufacturing defect, then I bet you could sue the manufacturer for a DEFECT in the PRODUCT.

One has to do with the USE of the product and the other has to do with a DEFECT in the product.

If a car ran over you, I certainly can understand suing the driver, but why is it Ford motor's fault? And that's what people like her are saying.
Whenever you make laws based on knee-jerk, they always turn out to be a mess. And this is what these people seem to want in their irrationality. Think about it and make laws that will actually address the issue and not have stupid side effects. Suing Ford Motor Company because someone ran over you makes not sense.

Legal things should not be subject to lawsuits designed to get around protections for the sole purpose of bringing down their manufacturers. This is the same kind of bullshit the right wing tries to shut down abortion clinics and you better fucking believe I'd vote for special protections for them to put a stop to the bad laws and lawsuits designed for the sole purpose of shutting them down. There is no protection for companies who produce defective products. Make guns illegal and you will have a case.

horrific crime. But I don't understand how suing the gun manufacturers is an answer to what happened. Adam Lanza used guns his mother acquired. They were a .22-caliber Savage MK II-F bolt action rifle, Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle, a 10mm Glock 20SF handgun, and a 9mm SIG Sauer P226 handgun. A Izhmash Saiga-12 shotgun was found in his car as well.

The problem is access to guns. These guns were all legally obtained. Red flags should go up when someone has that many guns registered.

My personal feeling is way to the left of most people's. I wish all guns were banned and people who wanted to shoot one went to a shooting range, signed in, shot at targets and then gave the guns back and signed out. The end.

But I do not agree that gun manufacturers - as long as gun manufacturing is legal - should be held liable for murders if their guns did not misfunction.

So my heart goes out to Dawn Hochsprung but I wish that we were able to have a real discussion about this. Unfortunately, during a campaign it appears to be easier to play on people's sympathies and to misrepresent what solutions we need.

... how many of these responses focus on whether it was "fair" or "negative" to hold Sanders accountable for his vote instead of on whether his vote was a good one or a bad one?

suing gun manufactures is the right way to go. It doesn't seem logical to me.

I think, it's more the fault of the lawmakers that allow such easy access to guns. That's where I'd be looking. All the loopholes they refuse to close. The shitty background checks. My understanding is if you get a license to carry in Florida is extends to something like 30 states--that's bullshit too.

Just my opinion.

This is a very dangerous slippery slope and if allowed to happen, would set legal precedence for a lot of very frivolous and irresponsible law suits. I see this as completely wrong. Imagine if we sue Ryder truck rental because McVeigh used one of their trucks to blow up the Oklahoma Federal Center?

No. This isn't the right thing to do.

Everyone knows Sanders is opposed to assault weapon sales to citizens, and favors tightened background checks for all gun sales. He doesn't have the solution and neither does she, but suing gun manufacturers for gun crimes is not the answer to our country's gun problems. HRC is once again twisting her argument specifically for political gain. She has readily assumed pro-gun stances in the past also for reasons of expediency, and is anti-gun now mainly to try and tarnish Bernie's consistently rational position. She is not in favor of repealing the 2nd amendment, and full-well knows that any such legislative effort would fail, only to result in the NRA choosing to donate less to her campaign, and/or massively fund PACs to oppose her.
Those trying to blame Bernie for our national insanity are obviously being disingenuous, and will not achieve any cure to the problem. And nominating Hillary will also not achieve any cure for our collective national shame and grief.

This is madness.

It must be frustrating.

It's a shame to see her pain exploited for cheap political points that would have had NO effect on her mother's life.