How many of those did Bernie vote against other than that pathetically written bill that he so rightfully voted against? Can you name them please? What about the special giveaways to the banks? Has anyone successfully sued the banks for the harm they did in the financial crash of 2008 that ruined so many lives? If someone hits you with a hammer should you sue the hammer manufacturers? I cut my thumb and required 6 stitches when I broke a glass while washing dishes in the kitchen sink. Who should I sue? The drinking glass manufacturer, my water company when I turned on the faucet to fill the sink or the Dawn dish soap company because the soap in the sink obscured the broken glass? I await your wisdom before I decide whom I should sue.

guns or else bring jobs to Vermont? It could be that he just votes out of political convenience, I'm not sure.

you are really interested in knowing Dan. Because that would make your little OP moot wouldn't it? So anyways, who should I sue Dan?

at the state level, I'm also curious whether he's done any work to protect corporations from lawsuits in Vermont.

The gun industry giveaway gives pretty good insight into where he stands on holding corporations accountable, though.

Every manufacturer is liable for defective products. Gun manufacturers are not exempt.
All manufacturers are exempt from liability when their product is used illegally. In that case, liability might exist in the supply chain. For example, a legal manufacturer of alchohol or automaker is exempt from liability for a drunk driver. Liability does exist for the server of alchohol or if someone hands their keys to a drunk person.
This has already been explained to you several times, yet you persist. Either you are willfully ignorant of liability law, or are willfully spreading lies in a dishonest smear. Which is it? Is this the plan for Camp Weathervane? Do you think lies and smears supports your candidate?

The bill brings firearm manufacturers in line with other manufacturers, not create an exemption for them. Obviously you didn't read it. The liability exists for defective product, same as any manufacturer. Repeated lying doesn't change the truth, it only makes you dishonest.

No, it obviously doesn't do that. It singles out the gun industry for special treatment. Before the bill, all manufacturers played by the same rules. After the bill, gun manufacturers were treated differently.

You're trying to pretend that before this law, there was another law that specifically held the gun industry to a different standard. Laughable.

Prior to the bill, there were cases where juries found firearm manufacturers liable, which was counter to liability law and an exception to other manufacturers. The bill cleared up liability cases that were improper decisions, and brought the same liability to firearm manufacturers as other manufacturers. Otherwise, liability law would be turned upside down.

And, no, the juries who find manufacturers liable were not "counter to liability" law, because liability law does not generally consider unlawful misuse as automatic grounds for dismissal. In fact, it still doesn't, except for gun manufacturer, because of the special immunity that Bernie voted for.

Before the law, gun manufacturers were treated the same as everyone else. After the law, they were treated differently. Period.

Automakers aren't sued for drunk drivers. Folgers wasn't sued for spilled McD's coffee. TopFlite isn't sued for wayward golf balls.
However, several juries had improperly found firearm manufacturers liable for guns used in a crime, not because they were defective. This was an improper exception to liability law that the bill cleared up and corrected. Otherwise liability law would be run amok... People could have sued the steel mill that supplied the steel the gun was made of, or the manufacturer of the machinery that makes guns.

The can be sued for criminal misuse. Of course, if the cases are frivolous, like your drunk driving example, they will be thrown out of court and the plaintiff will have to pay the legal costs of the defendant.

The fact that you think that juries acted "improperly" is utterly ludicrous. The juries were there and saw all the evidence, and you didn't. The juries acted properly, in accordance with the liability laws that govern every corporation, gun or otherwise. Everyone who loses a lawsuit thinks the jury acted "improperly". But when it happens to the gun industry, they get their the NRA and Bernie Sanders to actually change the law in their favor.

It's good to be a gun company.

Proves Hooptiewagon's point, not yours. In fact, it says, "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 (i.e. automobiles, appliances, power tools, etc.) are held responsible." Which is what Hooptiewagon stated.

The bill also wasn't passed until the amendment was added that safety locks and an assault weapon ban.

14 Democrats in the Senate voted for this bill.

Don't get me wrong. I hate guns. Hate them. I wish Senator Sanders had a stronger stance for gun control. But this law doesn't cut the mustard when trying to prove what a corporatist he is, or how awful his record is on gun control. You're trying to push something that just isn't there.

And for others, the rules for gun companies are differently. Specifically, in cases where there is "unlawful misuse", if it's a gun company it gets thrown out of court, and if it's not a gun company than it doesn't.

It wasn't total immunity, just partial immunity.

How does this play out? Well, in a lot of ways. There had already been successful lawsuits holding gun companies responsible for knowingly profiting from arming criminals. Another example: one lawsuit in IL, a kid found a gun, thought it was unloaded, then shot and killed another kid. Victim's family sued the gun maker, said it was too hard to tell if it was loaded when it looked unloaded. Problem is, the shooter was charged with juvenile manslaugher, a form of "criminal misuse", so a court never got to decide whether it was an unreasonably dangerous design.

If it had been anything other than a gun, that case would have gone to court.

The Illinois case was not thrown out because of anything to do with this law.

Additionally, if it can be proved a gun manufacturing company knowingly sold to criminals, which would have to be weapon dealers, that's a criminal case and the manufacturer would be charged. It also would not preclude civil action. There's a difference between filing a lawsuit against a manufacturer when a gun was stolen, or sold after the sale to a dealer, and used in a crime, and the manufacturer selling to a criminal.

Was upheld because it was not related to the gun owner's work.

While the PLCCA portion of the decision by the appellate court was affirmed in part, it was also reversed in part. And it was the work portion and Gaffney that caused the case to go to summary judgment

Jeeze! Did you read the entire thing? They affirmed in part and reversed in part the findings regarding the PLCCA. And summary judgment by the circuit court Was affirmed because his work had diddly squat to do with his owning a firearm and being careless with the storage.

How about arresting and suing the owner of the weapon instead of trying to allow his idiocy to try and blame the manufacturer?

Jesus Christ on a cheese sandwich!

any clearer.

Sure, arrest the owner of the gun if you want, but don't shield the manufacturer from liability simply because a kid was accused of a juvenile offence. Sheesh!

You are claiming a firearm manufacturer is exempted from liability other manufacturers carry. So name one case of a manufacturer being held liable for a criminal use of their product.

on the grounds of unlawful misuse. There isn't one. Because that's only grounds for gun companies.

You're claiming it exists. Prove it.

Prove it.

Without facts, I assume you're spouting BS.

A clue is that it's called the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" and not just the "Protection of Lawful Commerce Act."

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s397/text

...that a few juries were creating. The bill makes it clear firearm manufacturers are to have same liability of other manufacturers. You have yet to substantiate your claim of the opposite.

Not sure you understand how the legal system works. Juries don't write laws. They listen to evidence and then make decisions. I'm sure that if you were on the juries you would decide in favor of the gun companies, but you weren't. Hey, sometimes juries vote against you, them's the breaks.

The fact that firearm manufacturers now are held to more lenient standards is utterly clear from the text of the law, which singles out the firearm industry. If you can find a law there other industries get the same statutory exemption, I'd be very interested.

But you can't.

Because there isn't one.

You are claiming firearm manufacturers are exempted, so you should be able to cite one example to prove your point. You refuse to do so.

company has been dismissed due to unlawful misuse. You have also not cited any law that says anything remotely of the sort.

Since there is no such law on the books, I have no idea what cases would have been dismissed had there been one. You're arguing that an exemption was already in place. Prove it. Show me the law, or show me an instance where this law was applied.

It's obvious that there is no general exemption, because if there were then it wouldn't have been necessary to create the same exemption again for gun companies!

That seems to be a theme.

the statute where this exemption appears, or any instance in which the exemption was invoked.

Truly bizarre. But hey, this is GD-P.

First, in several of your posts, you're playing semantic games. "You can sue Person A for Injury X" is common shorthand for "You have a cause of action that will be upheld in court." You're pretending not to know that. Yes, in the narrowest literal sense, I could sue Hillary Clinton for being evasive about TPP, but the suit would have no merit.

Now, the case report you keep calling for is one in which Hoodlum stabbed Victim with a fork, and Victim brought suit against Manufacturer (with or without also suing Hoodlum), and the case was not thrown out. There are few or no such cases. Is that because fork manufacturers are subject to the same general liability as everyone else, but from which gun manufacturers are immune? No, it's because the case is garbage and, despite what people like Dan Quayle say, plaintiffs' personal injury lawyers generally don't take garbage cases.

The threat of sanctions for frivolous actions is comparatively remote. The real penalty is that, if we put in time on a case that gets thrown out, or goes to trial but yields a defense verdict, then we don't get paid. (We almost always work on contingency.) Nobody's going to sue a fork manufacturer just to prove something to an internet poster who's willing to advance any ridiculous argument against a candidate he opposes.

If I thought you actually had an open mind (despite your repeated pro-Clinton zealotry) and if I cared enough about your opinion, I could spend a few hours in the law library and probably find a suit against a fork manufacturer or the equivalent. Somebody might have thought there were special circumstances that created a colorable case. In general, though, I feel quite confident in saying that the manufacturer of a lawful product is not going to be held liable for its unlawful use.

The key here is the "lawful product" part. I favor gun control but I favor doing it directly. If a product shouldn't be sold, ban it. It's needlessly roundabout to say that the manufacture and sale are legal but the manufacturer will be subject to huge liabilities when people use the product. In addition, it would be undemocratic for the latter result to be imposed by unelected juries. I don't want Bible Belt juries to be able to slap big verdicts on abortion doctors.

before reflexively defending Bernie. Following your example, I might call that "pro-Bernie zealotry".

When I use the term "you can sue," what I mean is that there's no law specifically preventing you from doing it. The reason the fork-stabbing analogy is so dumb is that nobody is going to win a lawsuit against a gun company simply because they got shot, just as nobody is going to win a lawsuit for fork-stabbing. And nobody was going to win one even before PLCAA. You don't need a new law for that.

The fork/hammer thing is a silly hypothetical example designed specifically to misrepresent what the law actually does. Sure, it prevents those lawsuits, but those lawsuits weren't happening, or at least not succeeding to begin with. The reason the NRA wanted the law so badly is because it also prevents lawsuits that had merit. The best evidence for this, as I've pointed out many times, is that the lawsuits were actually succeeding.

Also, your abortion doctor example is completely absurd. Perhaps you didn't even bother and read PLCAA. It doesn't protect abortion doctors because it only exempts the gun industry. If it was a more general law about lawful products, then maybe it would be defensible, but it's clearly not that. It's a specific giveaway to the gun industry.

If you, as a claimed tort lawyer, are in favor of tort reform across the board, that's fine. The Koch Brothers and ALEC are with you on that. Not me. And that's the question I was asking in the OP. Does Bernie favor making it more difficult to sue corporations in general, or does he just have a special place in his heart for gun companies?

First, on a personal note, I find it amusing that a pseudonymous poster insinuates that I might be lying about my background. Tell me, is one of Clinton’s dark-money SuperPACs paying you to post here? I have no information one way or the other, but if we were to play the game of looking behind the contents of a post to ask about a poster’s background, that kind of thing might come up.

If you want to verify my “claim” and also learn something about tort law, you can read this case. I frequently represent children who’ve been subjected to lead poisoning, usually because a landlord was greedy or negligent and didn’t do proper remediation of lead-based paint. The landlords, in defending these cases, hit on the tactic of arguing that the children’s cognitive impairments might be genetic, not environmental. (In one particularly bald instance, the brief for the landlord asked how children of a mother on welfare could possibly be as smart as the average child. Obviously “those people” must have inferior genes to “our sort” if you know what I mean nudge nudge wink wink.) To pursue that idea they wanted the pretrial discovery to include all kinds of intrusive inquiry into the affected children’s parents and siblings.

The issue went up on appeal. As you’ll see from the link, the intermediate appellate court, covering Manhattan and the Bronx, ruled unanimously in our favor. (New York’s highest court later reached essentially the same conclusion in a different case.) I was the principal author of the brief and made the successful oral argument, though I must acknowledge that Brian J. Shoot, who also worked on the brief, is an absolute genius and deserves at least as much of the credit.

For you to imply that I am “in favor of tort reform across the board” is just silly. Even if you think I don’t actually care about children who get lead poisoning, or about other victims of torts, surely you can believe that I oppose measures that would strangle my own livelihood.

As for the abortion thing, thank you for the stunning revelation that it’s not covered by the PLCAA. As it happens, I knew that. Let me try to elaborate on my point in the hope that the explanation won’t whiz right over your head. The context of my comment was the role of juries. If there’s a general principle of law that people doing lawful things aren’t liable in damages, and if the partially random process of jury selection happens to empanel a jury that despises a particular defendant, is it a good thing if the jury awards hefty damages against that defendant? The related question is whether our answer to the first question is to be based on general principles or whether it depends on whether we also despise that defendant.

Our current system of enacting, enforcing, and interpreting laws doesn’t always produce the results I favor. Nevertheless, there are respects in which I favor protecting the system even if works against me. The people in Jason Chaffetz’s district should be free to elect him, RWNJ though he be. If he gets a majority, he’s in, my disgust notwithstanding.

OK, back to gun control. If the legal situation is that there are some restrictions on gun sales, but not as many as I’d like, and a gun is sold in compliance with the regulations, so that on general principles the manufacturer should not be liable for the gun’s use, but some juries can be found that impose liability, is that a good thing? Before you jump to praise this evasion of a law you dislike, consider the abortion example. An abortion doctor is similar to a gun manufacturer – performing a lawful activity that many people dislike. If you’re fine with a jury socking it to a defendant you don’t like, but you think that a Bible Belt jury verdict against an abortion doctor would be an outrage, then you’ve departed from the whole idea of a rule of law. You wouldn’t be alone in that, of course; it’s a discreditable idea but one with a long history.

Where I’m coming from is that we have no perfect candidates. We choose among imperfect people. Either O’Malley or Sanders would be far, far preferable to Clinton on many, many issues. As between those two, I have some concerns about Sanders on gun control issues. The PLCAA seems reasonable to me, and he supported several gun control measures, but his record is mixed, including a vote against the Brady Bill. See this page for a summary of his major votes, some pro gun control, some against. I also have some concerns about O’Malley, including his criminal-justice policies as Mayor of Baltimore. But neither of them voted for an imperialist war, both of them opposed fast track, and... I could go on and on.

Last edited Mon Oct 5, 2015, 10:49 AM - Edit history (2)

automatically enough grounds to dismiss a case. Which means you also understand that there are legitimate tort claims involving unlawful misuse. And you also know that giving an example of a single hypothetical such case that does not have merit (i.e. Bernie's argument) does not demonstrate that all lawsuits involving unlawful misuse have no merit. In fact, you can also come up with hypothetical examples of unlawful misuse cases that should be heard in court. I gave such an example in a thread in the gun control forum:

Your spiked Ford example is simply silly. I have litigated products liability cases (your continued insinuation that I’m not a tort lawyer, after I showed you one of my cases, goes beyond silliness and becomes desperation). In a design case, it’s almost always necessary for a plaintiff to proffer expert evidence about an alternative design that would have been feasible and that would have prevented the injury that occurred. Can you design a Ford without spikes that kill kids and have it still function for its lawful purposes? Yes. Can you design a gun that won’t kill a bunch of innocent people in a school or a movie theater but will still function for its lawful purposes? I don’t see how. The technology doesn’t exist to make guns that can’t be misused.

The bottom line is that, in the United States, it’s legal to manufacture and sell guns, with some restrictions, restrictions that are looser than I would like. Given that that’s the law at the federal level, and given that opponents of the law can’t win tougher restrictions by a straightforward vote in Congress, is it appropriate for that law to be undercut and evaded through indirect means? You’re happy with NYC’s attempt to do so. Again, it’s helpful to look at the more general issue by envisioning the shoe on the other foot. It’s legal to print and distribute sexually explicit material, with some restrictions, restrictions that are looser than some people would like. Suppose Salt Lake City brings a suit against Playboy under a public nuisance law. Should that attempt to evade federal law (in this case, the First Amendment) be allowed to go forward? I’d say that was inappropriate. Again it comes down to the rule of law. If you believe in the rule of law, then an individual jury or a particular municipality shouldn’t be able to circumvent the law.

Finally, along with again insinuating that I’m a liar about my field, you suggest that “maybe” I have a corporatist legal philosophy. Then you refute that -- a classic straw-man argument. The whole exercise convinces me that you are an all-out Hillary-can-do-no-wrong-and-her-opponents-can-do-no-right booster, that you are not pursuing a genuine dialog, and that I have already erred by devoting far more time to this than it deserves. Elsewhere on this board, there are serious discussions of gun control, that offer a better reward for my time. You may now have the last word in this exchange.

Calling the spiked Ford example "silly" is not a rebuttal. What is "silly" is the hammer analogy. And the reason why it is silly is that hammer companies don't need special legal protection to protect themselves from that kind of lawsuit, and neither do gun companies. If you bothered to look up what the gun lawsuits were all about, you'd see that the spiked Ford analogy is much closer to the mark.

The Ford analogy was intended to demonstrate that there are situations where a legitimate tort claim can be made involving unlawful misuse -- that unlawful misuse is not automatic grounds for dismissing a case (unless you're in the gun industry -- thanks, NRA). And the Ford example did that. Up until this post, you were denying it. I would have figured that as a tort lawyer you would already have known this, but apparently you didn't. Now you do. You're welcome.

Let's accept that you have actually litigated product liability cases. You know who else has litigated them? The lawyers representing plaintiffs suing the gun companies. And apparently they are better lawyers then you are because they were winning those cases.

Yes, obviously, in order to show that the gun companies had any liability, they would have to demonstrate that either the design, marketing or other business practices of such companies could have been done differently in order to still provide useful guns for lawful owners without exacerbating and profiting from gun violence. That's exactly what they did, which is why, I repeat, the lawsuits were successful.

As for examples of lawsuits involving public nuisance statutes that you disagree with, if you have any that actually occurred, I'd be interested. Maybe you can make a case that there should be no public nuisance statutes at all, or that they should be weakened. Or maybe you can make a case that unlawful misuse should result in automatic dismissal of liability claims in general.

Go ahead and make those cases. Like I said, the people who would agree are generally right-wingers and corporatists that have been pushing tort reform (which is why PLCAA was mostly a party-line vote). Still, hey, maybe the laws could be written in a better way. But if you make those cases, at least be consistent about it. Don't carve out a special exemption for the gun industry. Beyond the obvious double standard, it also sets the precedent that if you are an industry with good political connections, you can get congress to pass a special exemption for you. This is precisely the kind of corruption that Bernie would ordinarily rail against.

Should include a the tobacco industry suits.

You can sue Toyota?

NO.

Of course, if your suit is frivolous, you will lose and have to pay Toyota's legal costs. The same way it is for every other industry, and the way it used to be for the gun industry until Bernie decided they needed special privileges.

A lot of Bernie fans are like Fox News watchers.

with his weak sauce of liberalism.

We are listening, we just don't buy Dan's logic.

and you'll have to pay the defendant's legal fees because it will be deemed frivolous.

OIr what if it falls on a buddy while we're trying to steal it?

Yes these examples are rife with hoodlumism. Just roll with it.

Not just that, but let's say I specifically voted against an amendment that would have made that war less likely to happen. For a little spice, let's also put my name on a bill protecting the continued use and sale of cluster weapons by my country, munitions with a well-documented instance of mutilating and killing noncombatants for years agfter the wars have drawn to a close.

How liable am I?

about the courts because you've got congressmen like Bernie in your pocket.

supplying criminals with guns, which is what the Bernie/NRA law was designed to protect.

and the company refused to make the change, they might well be sued and might well lose that suit. In general, if something if forseeable (like the fact that if you send thousands and thousands of guns to gun stores right outside of Chicago those guns might kill kids in Chicago after being sold to gun runners) then yes your company can be sued.

fork manufacturer.

That should clue you in that this isn't what the law was about.

about violence?

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2008/03/13/cluster-bombs-are-not-good-children-hillary

with corporations over victims of gun violence.

with corporations. Bernie has given his reasons, and I agree with them, no matter how many times you re-package your florid accusations and smears.

Let's assume, incorrectly, that I buy your smears, which I do not. Hillary is probably the worst alternative of all the candidates as regards gun violence, and violence itself. And with siding with corporations.

holding them accountable for profiting from gun violence.

Yes, a lot of people agree with Bernie. That's part of his role. In addition to voting for the giveaway, he also repeats the talking points to sell it and cover up the true intent.

like you are linking Bernie to innocent victims of gun violence. It's not a smear Dan, Hillary went on the record proudly approving the use of them. Tell me Dan, in your little game are you worried about their right to sue the US for the loss of life and limb cause by cluster bombs? Do you approve of Hillary's history of approving and siding with the use of? Do you know who is mostly harmed by cluster bombs Dan? Children.

and as a rule the OP responds back to the conversation. I think Hillary's largesse toward the munitions industry that manufactures cluster bombs fits right in with your OP. One could even bring up her war vote since she approves and encourages the use of cluster bombs along with other politicians on innocent victims. Cluster bombs are used during war and last long after, the kind of the gift that keeps on giving, long after the war is over. You can't use cluster bombs for hunting, they are used strictly to cause the death and destruction of human beings. War munitions are big business Dan.

Again, are you worried about their right to sue the manufactures of cluster bombs Dan? If not you are a little hypocritical.

them relevant to this discussion. Or relevant to anything, really. But thanks for your opinion on Bernie's gun industry giveaway.

“It's time for the United States to start thinking of Iraq as a business opportunity," she said in a 2011 speech.

I seriously want to know what effect this has had. The Illinois case, often cited, was not thrown out because of anything to do with this law.

This law does not stop any case involving defects.

I'm also curious as to your thoughts on charging people that have been careless with their weapons and, that carelessness, has ended with the shooting of a child, often in the death of a child. Parents seem to be able to get away with those murders.

Total aside here; my auto correct showed "Roseanne" as a choice for both, "shooting.." and "death of.." How weird is that!?

was one of the motivations for them pushing so hard for this. At the time, there were similar lawsuits in the courts, and those got thrown out. Since then, cases like that aren't even brought to court because they will be thrown out.

There have been other instances though where cases got thrown out. One example is cited in this WP article. Basically what happened is one kid grabbed a gun, thought it was unloaded, and then shot and killed another kid by accident, playing around. The victim's family sued the gun company, saying that it was too hard to tell whether the gun was loaded or not. Problem is, the kid who fired the shot got charged as a juvenile for manslaughter, a criminal offence, and so the lawsuit was thrown out of court under the immunity law because of "unlawful misuse", before a jury could actually determine whether the gun's design was faulty. I don't know if the design was faulty, but this is the kind of thing a jury should decide.

And there are plenty of other little things like this. That's the whole way ALEC goes about this. They try and simplify the issue with misleading talking points, but when it gets down to the nitty gritty of the legal system, the laws they get passed have a real detrimental effect.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/10/bernie-sanders-misleading-characterization-of-a-controversial-gun-law/

And that was not thrown out because of this law. I'm sure you know that. I know you know that

Not the reason for summary judgment. Even without any of that, it would have been dismissed

I'm done. You're either unable to comprehend the entire decision or you're just arguing for arguments sake

Have a beautiful day

The point is, claims that should have been considered were dismissed due to PLCAA.

He makes all Clinton supporters and Hillary herself look bad. Please continue, Dan!

The claim you are making is the gun manufacturers are actually liable, if it wasn't for this law. Why are they liable?

1) The gun is a legal product, with legal uses.
2) The gun was not defective.
3) They did not sell the gun to the shooter - gun manufacturers can only sell to dealers, not directly to the public.
4) No laws were broken by the manufacturer.

So what's the basis for your liability lawsuit?

Recently, a drunk driver decided to drive the wrong way down the Interstate near where I live. He killed 4 people in the resulting head-on crash. Are the car manufacturers liable for that? If so, what is the basis for their liability? And why is that different than gun manufacturers?

Since they aren't actually liable, your proposed lawsuit from the families of the victims would fail. And they could be required to pay attorneys fees and court costs if the gun manufacturers can successfully counter-sue. Why do you want to rip out their wallet after ripping out their heart?

all the trouble of having congress carve out a special immunity law for them. Wonder why they didn't think of that?

How 'bout you try these two easy ones:

What is the basis for the liability suit against the gun manufacturers?
Why do automakers not have the same liability?

is that gun manufacturers were knowingly profiting from business practices that they knew were causing more gun violence. That they knew that many of their guns were ending up in criminal hands, and they knew they could have reduced that, but they didn't because doing so would have hurt their profits.

If you want more details, then you should read about the specifics of the individual cases. They weren't all the same, there's a lot of variety. But, obviously, the lawsuits were well founded in pre-existing liability law, because they were succeeding.

As for car manufacturers, if they did something similar, yes, they would have the same liability. And they still do, because the auto industry is not part of the legal immunity bill that Bernie voted for. Only the gun industry.

That should tell you something.

You should be able to clearly draw the line from what the gun manufacturers did that caused this shooting. That is what is required to show they are liable.

need to know about their legitimacy. You see, lawsuits aren't litigated on message boards, they go into detail with evidence, laws, etc.

Again, if you're interested in more details than I've given, google the Smith and Wesson case. It was a big win for the Clinton Administration, and it was one of the reasons that the NRA fought so hard for legal immunity to begin with. It's odd that you keep pretending I haven't given any examples, because I linked to this lawsuit in the OP.

Anyway, as I pointed out, if this giveaway was based on some sound judicial principle, it would have applied to all industries, not just guns. But it obviously wasn't.

How is it you can't manage to point out a single success when you are claiming there is a massive number of successful lawsuits?

And it's hilarious that you think the result is "complying with a law they were already complying with." The lengths people go to for the sake of self-delusion. You really think that the huge settlement that prompted an NRA-led boycott, and then this horrific law that put an end to all such lawsuits in the future was just about nothing? LOL.

I pointed out that the article's "big win" claim was based on only selling guns to people who pass a background check.

Gun manufacturers can only sell to federal firearms dealers. Who have to pass a background check to become federal firearms dealers.

So the big win is they can only sell to the people they could only sell to.

You may be the only person on earth you thinks its some kind of triviality. The Clinton Administration, gun control advocates, the gun industry, and the NRA all thought it was a huge deal. Basically everyone who knows anything about gun policy.

But, hey, living in your own bubble can be fun sometimes.

If you want to peek out, here are more details of the settlement.
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000317_2.html

It's supposedly so big, yet you still can't manage to point out any actual change in business practices that were supposedly so bad.

So what did the big evil gun manufacturers actually have to change?

I'm aware there's plenty of people who claim it's a victory. Yet they can't manage to point out where they actually won. That's kinda a clue that their claim of victory is a wee bit dishonest.

But hey, that Colorado couple that is now financially destroyed after losing their child is a small price to pay. Lawsuits like theirs were totally going to put the entire global arms industry out of business.

the whole link for you?

Like I said, the gun industry, NRA, gun control advocates, and the Clinton administration, groups that rarely agree on things, all considered this a big case. And if you read that link, you'd know why.

Yet if you actually look at these "changes" you find there aren't any.

For example, one "change" is they'll only sell guns to people who pass background checks. The law already required that, and they were already doing it - Federal firearms dealers have to pass a background check.

And the law you are complaining about did not change this at all. If a gun manufacturer sells to someone other than a federal firearms dealer, they're still liable even after the law you decry.

The rest of the "changes" in the article are "work towards" and "do more with" bullshit that is completely unmeasurable. S&W pays for a gun range to buy a bunch of S&W guns for their "safety program". Ta-da! S&W has complied with the agreement.

Now if you can find me the statutes showing where all of this was already part of the law...

It's just a bunch of hot air.

Just any old reason to attack Bernie Sanders because he looks so much better than your candidate.

Sad to see, personal attack instead of just answering the member.

said no Sanders Supporter ever.

Tragedy strikes through gun violence in the U.S.A again ,and a Hillary supporter exploits it.

Sanders made a very bad decision here

They sold a non-defective gun to a licensed federal firearms dealer. He sold that gun to someone else. That gun was used in a crime.

Where'd the gun manufacturer do something wrong? Where should they be liable?

(And keep in mind they do not have immunity if the gun is defective, or if they sell the gun to someone who isn't a federal firearms dealer. Even after this law passed.)

The OP's grasp of logic is just as full of total bullshit as his grasp of mathematics.

Their desperation smells like bullshit.