When guns are defective and malfunction. Sounds like you have a problem with them being legal. Best of luck getting that changed.

Lots of companies make products that are fine if not defective but can be dangerous if they malfunction. Why do gun manufacturers need extra special protection?

And sue them out of business. No one is doing that with other legal products and I would support similar legislation if they were.
What you have a problem with is the 2nd amendment. Get started working on its repeal.

If it's bullshit then the jury can throw it out. The only reason I can think of giving gun manufacturers special extra protection is that there are a lot of gun owners in Vermont.

If you can prove the gun malfunctioned or is defective. You can't sue them because someone was killed with a gun. That's the purpose of a gun. Awaiting your 2nd Amendment repeal campaign.

conspired to rig lax gun laws and convince yahoos that guns in your pants and closet are good because you can defend yourself against the boogeyman that is hiding behind every tree ready to jump out an rape your wife, shoot an unarmed teen running away with the pink flamingo off your lawn at 250 yards with the world's best sniper rifle for American home, make yourself a man just by plopping down a few hundred bucks and oiling your baby down, and used the NRA to conspire to elect white legislators who'd protect your rights to kill with a gun.

Seems like better grounds than those who sued cigarette manufacturers.

Don't want you to fall prey to the evil messages you're receiving from gun makers

I had no dog in that fight

I got what I needed.

Liability is determined by the court of law. Taking that decision out of the courts by taking that right away from American citizens is a form of protection for corporations. Why should gun manufacturers get that? Yes, there are a lot of people who want them heavily regulated. The answer isn't to say that people can't sue them because some people are suspicious of their motivations. If you don't think other industries aren't salivating over that precedent. "Oh, those people just want to skirt the law that says people have a right to pollute! Please, please save us from the frivolous lawsuits! You did it for the guns!" Says the coal companies. And the courts look at the legal precedent and shrug.

how are they responsible for a stolen gun being used to murder someone?

... of their hands and into corporations.

His vote is down right immoral

Is the same tactics the right wing uses to shut down abortion clinics. Careful what you wish for.

...and even in the cases of abortion clinics the magistrates figure that out too and then there's counters suites for time and expenses.

But believe what you want, nothing is going to change the fact that Sanders vote was immoral

from its rightful owner and used in a crime?

Why not sue the state where the sale was approved?

... saying.

And its up to pretrial actions to determine the validity of the suite and not give special exceptions to one industry.

Sanders judgement here was flawed at best, he's not so naive to think these lawsuits could not be pre litigated for validity

for a crime committed by someone the manufacturer didn't do business with

... exempted from the same pretrial actions all other corps have to go through.

A magistrate or a judge is to do the deciding on that based on the evidence before them not some broad stroke on what is or isn't a good suit.

Sanders vote, on its face, is immoral at best and bad judgement

... evidence.

Gun corps should have to go through the same pretrial as every other person or corp goes through in America.

All... really!? cause the gun industry said so!?

Specifically forbidding lawsuits seeking to impose civil liability for the criminal misuse of their legal products by 3rd parties.

... gun corps if they can prevent the use of guns for criminal purposes and just decide not to.

one instance

its immoral...full stop

assign blame to a manufacturer for the criminal misuse of their products?

Why not sue the state which approved the sale? How can a manufacturer, who sells the gun to anyone but a licensed dealer prevent their products from being used in a crime by either eventual owner, the manufacturer didn't deal with, or someone who stole the gun from the actual owner?

... and it take any incentive they have to make these dangerous weapon safer.

There is no voter fraud and there's not rash of frivolous suits either that cant be dealt with through pretrial.

this law was passed by gumpers for gumpers

How do you propose they make the weapon safer?

.... law usually just depend on sophistry and think everyone else can't go to wikipedia and read the damn law.

So if a gun dealer SHOULD KNOW they're selling to someone who COULD commit a crime they have no obligation to not to sell or that if someone is straw buying and the dealer SHOULD know then they're protected.

This law is immoral, other than sophistry there's little defense of it or ... or even giving them the benefit of protection

as it shouldn't. And they have to have knowledge that the gun will be used in a crime. Not that it COULD be used in one.
How would a dealer know if the buyer is a straw purchaser when the sale is approved by the government?

What's immoral is using dead children to make a buck

... give the shrug emoji and they're good.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/bernie-sanders-vote-gun-immunity-black-market

This outlines everything past the sophistry that explains this defense of this horrible law that Sanders voted for

which would be a ridiculous standard as anything can pretty much be used in a crime.

So you're upset at Sanders because a gun dealers can be sued in cases of negligence? Or your upset that the Sandy Hook parents can't sue Remington because Adam Lanza wasn't the lawful owner of the gun he used to murder those kids.

You're really not making any sense.

... and Sanders for anything.

He showed bad judgement and seems to have unually close ties to a non progressive cause for someone to claim to be so progressive

protects people who did nothing wrong.

How is it moral to try and make money from company that had nothing to do with anyone dying?

We'll get to mother jones.

And last time I checked...we have a specific federal agency that investigates crimes like illegal gun sales by licensed dealers.
.
Demanding a company preclude foreseeable harm assumes the abilities not even demanded of the state when conducting a background check on a potential sale.

Take Sandy Hook....who could have foreseen Adam Lanza murdering his mother then taking her legally purchased and legally registered Bushmaster(which was legally made and legally transferred to a licensed dealer who then sold it to her) going to a school and murdering a bunch of kids?

Don't worry, you wont be the first defender of Sanders vote not to address the article directly

namely, that the lawsuits he helped derail once represented the most viable effort in decades to stem the flow of guns onto the black market.

...filing frivolous lawsuits against individual gun dealers and manufacturers. The only basis for these lawsuits was that they didn't like the product. If another business was facing that same organized barrage of stupid lawsuits, they should be protected from it as well.

...right? Creating false reports and crap like that? That's way different than suing someone for legally selling a product that you just don't like.

...were gun manufacturers accused of false advertising or what?

who don't need them, etc.

we'll never know what the legal system would have found, because Bernie and his allies gave the NRA its greatest legislative victory ever.

For the much vilified AR-15, of the myriad manufacturers who produce clones of the AR-15 platform, only Colt Defense is the holder of the 'Technical Data Package' that defines the quality level of that weapon.

Technically, from DPMS (lower grade) to Bushmaster (mid-grade) to Daniel Defense (highest grade) NONE of these are military grade according to the true definition. Only Colt is. And yet Daniel Defense is considered possibly superior to Colt.

While others have used clones or other weapons with high capacity magazines?

I think you know the answer. So they can kill the most people in the least amount of time without having to reload.

Now please tell us why Bernie Sanders voted against what he called "military style assault weapons"? While you are at it please explain why a hunter or someone defending his home needs a rifle with a high capacity magazine. As a responsible gun owner myself and former military who was qualified with an AR-15 (the early M-16 military version) I would say that anyone who needs a high capacity magazine for those situation needs to spend more time at the range.

....as a civilian, if you are carrying a rifle for self defense....

....you are already screwed.


Why mass shooters use AR-15s? No idea. I am not qualified to answer that.

Out of respect to your question - best guess: because they are associated with inflicting mass casualties.


I don't hunt. When I did, it was with a flintlock. No kidding.


FWIW: I don't even carry a semi auto handgun for self defense

I carry a .38 revolver.

in fact, rifles are rarely used to commit murder

...or question?

Just so you know...

To write (or even advocate the writing of) law, yes, you have to be pretty damn good at semantics.

Also...in any law, a section of definitions precedes the statutes.

Have to be good at definitions.

You can't legislate against 'things that scare me.'

... forward questions?

Folk know a damn AR - 15 isn't being used to hunt hogs ... whatever, the Sanders immunity vote was immoral on its face and in no way "progressive"

...or was not a vote I agreed with.

I was just clarifying a definition.

I wasn't even arguing any point one way or the other.

No, an AR should not be used to hunt hogs.

Do you know why not?

... a military uniform.

My take on guns .... or uh... firearms....is most likely a little different than yours

... and the country would be a better place and Clinton should be the dem nominee !!!

cool

...my .38



That stays with me.

And it's primary usage was not to kill. No one has been mispresenting the deadlines of guns. Your arguments have no merit until you can succeed in outlawing guns. Get on it.

Obviously the judge or jury will throw that lawsuit out as frivolous. Why can't the same thing happen with "frivolous" lawsuits against gun manufacturers?

...to create a number of lawsuits against Ben and Jerry's and they'd most likely get the same protections. That's the difference.

You can't sue Ford if someone runs over you with a Ford. You can't sue gun manufacturers if someone shots you. You can't sue a knife manufacturer if someone stabs you.

I support strong gun control but trying to hold manufacturers responsible for what people illegally do with their products is not only ridiculous but it's counter productive.

My suit will likely be thrown out by a judge or jury, but there is no special law that prevents me from filing the lawsuit.

protection.

Google Smith and Wesson.

The very idea that an industry whose business practices are so destructive to the fabric of society that they are facing significant legal challenges, but then calls its friends in congress like Bernie to pass a special immunity law to protect it, should cause any progressive to want to puke. And, actually it does cause progressives to want to puke.

...I'm not a gun owner and probably never will be. But ultimately, the only way to get rid of them is to change the constitution. Suing out of existence people who are legally selling a product isn't the answer.

They should play by the same rules as everyone else. The certainly shouldn't get special legal protection simply because they have a powerful lobby.

This is not about suing them out of existence, it's about protecting the profits of corporations at the expense of society. It's a blatant corporate giveaway.

that claims they're responsible for how a stolen gun was used?

suing Remington because a guy killed his mother, stole her guns and then used them to commit murder is a different story

Along with her Husband.





http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/07/us/politics/the-vote-for-bankruptcy-reform-that-haunts-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2016/01/16/clinton-record-wall-street-laissez-faire/Z2a3iOsj40wryeRN2iT6qK/story.html

And since Bank of America was successfully sued for $16.65 billion and JP Morgan Chase for $13 billion, I have my doubts that such a law was ever passed.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/bank-america-pay-1665-billion-historic-justice-department-settlement-financial-fraud-leading

http://www.streetinsider.com/Corporate+News/JPMorgan+Chase+(JPM),+U.S.+DoJ+Enter+Record+$13B+MBS+Settlement/8905148.html

The settlement you link is from a Law passed in 1989.
BBC(Before Both Clintons)
Sins of Omission are still sins. Repealing Laws and Turning a blind eye to those actions is the same as protection

It's one of the very strong indications that the Bernie movement is a cult of personality and really isn't about progressive policies.

on Clinton and then claim it's a witch hunt that people are holding Bernie to the same standard to which they held Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

If they agree with him, that is different, but there is nothing wrong with saying my guy sucks on gun policy but I still support him.

I get why Hillary supports some things I don't, and I'm ok with our differences.

when she jumped to the Republicon's side and supported the invasion of Iraq. Not only did she vote when beckoned by Bush, she doubled down and repeated the Bush lies before Congress. We depended on her to keep the idiot Republcons in check. I guess she likes them more than us.

to any completely unrelated point related to Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, etc.

Nicely done!

What is the problem? If you want to make guns illegal to manufacture, distribute and sell, I'm all for it. I would prefer a country with zero guns. Until then I don't see how an industry making a legal product and having the legal product sold to a legal buyer should be held liable if the legal buyer goes nuts and shoots someone. If I suddenly decide to run over someone with my Rav4, do you think that person will get anywhere suing Toyota because I went nuts? So maybe that provision protecting gun manufacturers should be dropped. It will take a few frivolous lawsuits resulting in people who can't afford it having to pay the legal fees for manufacturers they sued, but eventually it would pass. In this climate, having the law in place is almost protecting people from themselves. Those Sandy Hook parents got horrible legal advice. You can't sue based on what you wish the laws were and if you're bringing suit to make a point you should be prepared to pay the legal fees of the opponent when you lose based upon existing law.

Why are these people so afraid of the jury system? Why the need for a special law?

who do not have unlimited funds for lawyers. All of those frivolous lawsuits could certainly go to a judge or jury, but not only would it bankrupt small businesses who in the end would be cleared, it would clog the courts up worse than they are already. At this point, as I said, maybe it would be a good thing to have all the frivolous lawsuits filed. After enough judgments are in place and enough lawsuit filers have been bankrupted by filing their suits and having to pay the opposing side's legal fees, maybe the threat Bernie was concerned about would be gone.

right?

law as it is written and comes to the floor. I'm sure Hillary has voted in favor of legislation that included smelly bits of other items in it. That's the way Congress works. There is no such thing as a clean bill. I have to admit. I'm totally puzzled by the angst over this. If a gun manufacturer were to be sued after a crime and their transaction was totally legal, the loser would be the person who could least afford it and that would most likely be a vulnerable person who has suffered a terrible loss and is goaded into suing by others.

.... the conversation all you want with semantics bottom line Sanders vote was immoral at best.

What is your legal theory for suing a legal manufacturer of a legal product for a legally sold gun? I imagine this was primarily a law put in place to avoid frivolous law suits, but the gun manufacturer is not different from the car manufacturer when it comes to liability. If their business has been legally conducted and the weapon that was legally sold is used in a crime, what is the legal theory that holds the gun manufacturer liable?

... this is simple.

There should be no exceptions for the gun industry, going through a system that has worked for the most part the gun industry should NOT have an exception

to sue a gun manufacturer and win. You would end up with a bunch of vulnerable victims who have already suffered a loss being stuck with legal fees the gun industry paid to defend the suit. Unless specific guns or specific parts of guns are made illegal in this country, they're pretty much safe from lawsuit anyway whether than law is in place or not.

...go through the same process every other corp does and let the judicial system weed the bad litigation out.

the gun corps can also counter sue for time and expenses for frivolous suits

Sanders push for this law was immoral and not progressive in any way.

I'm just saying you should be realistic. Victims who are suffering will be goaded into filing suit and end up in bankruptcy when it all goes wrong because the weapon was entirely legal.

whether that law was in place or not. A whole lot of people on this forum engage in magical thinking.

and it's trying to make some obscure point in support of Clinton. Take it up with nye bevan.

Pour some liquor in that "shot glass" a few times and suddenly it becomes a metal missile hurtling out of control down some city street, hell bent on ending a life or three.

Sue the company that markets shot glasses? Sue the glass maker?

Remember, before the addition of liquor a shot glass is merely a vessel for holding liquid.

I guess we don't need a special law to shield makers of shot glasses.

not a single one of them can come up with any logical argument which links the manufacture and legal sale to a dealer/distributor makes the manufacturer liable for crimes committed with a gun stolen from the rightful owner

Since 11 years ago, Clinton did not perform this totally imaginary hypothetical act.

But in the real world, she did vote for the banker-backed and disastrous bankruptcy reform act of 2005.

So maybe there was some confusion there.