Re: US Senate chooses guns over ships.


"Vince" <firelaw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:J8qdncH0gfWekXffRVn-rQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Brad Meyer wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 23:04:49 -0400, Vince Brannigan <news@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Quit trying to excuse the criminal.
>>>>
>>>
>>>i dont. but if we cant find the criminal is it your stance that its just
>>>"tough ***" for the victim ?
>>>and business as usual for gun dealers
>>
>>
>> And the car dealers and the clothing sellers and . . .
>>
>> Why pick on just one?
> "picking on" is not a legal concept
> "Forseeabilty" and "proximate cause are".
>
> The legal system has always been engaged in line drawing on responsibility
> and in the case of firearms the the "forseeability" issue is much clearer
>

But since every new firearm (except for those stolen in transit from
shippers or before sale from distributors or dealers) is sold by a dealer
licensed to do so by the USGovernment, have we not in practice placed a seal
of approval on the sale/transfer, just as we require a government licensed
pharamacist to dispense certain substances, yet cannot hold the pharmacist,
pharmacy, distributor or manufacturer liable unless he/she/it has
made/shipped/sold a faulty or dangerous product or acted negligently or
wrongfully.

After all, one wouldn't be suing the gun manufacturer on the grounds that
its product had not "worked".

By licensing the dealer, and with the potential to deny renewal or remove
the license for violations, it appears to me that the government has placed
the burden upon the dealer, removing the manufacturer from the chain other
than for deceptive advertising (hardly possible, although exaggeration is
obviously permissible, since the game in ads always falls upon impact) or
faulty design/production).

Short of doing away with the current Federal Firearms Licensing requirement,
and requiring manufacturers to be the "licensed" retailers of their
products, I'm not sure how they are presumed to hold a unique and
unduplicated sort of liability, unless we're going to include the
"Amalgamated Chinese Butcher Knife Manufactory, Inc." among the list of
potetial defendants. The automobile analogy seems quite relevant. I
suppose survivors could sue and recover from a Ford dealer for delivering a
new Shelby Mustang to a unlicensed 16 year old who writes a check, jumps in,
drives off and runs into a bridge abutment 500 years down the road, but I
see little likelihood of the courts upholding a judgement for damages
against Ford itself for manufacturing a product so attractive to potentially
dangerous drivers.

I don't know....maybe a good plaintiff's attorney could establish some
precedent with such a claim...."L&G of the jury, that damn car was so
attractive and appealing that Bobby Joe couldn't resist buying it and
driving fast like in the TV ads, and as a result poor Betty Jean will never
walk again or bear children...."

....But then emerges a new line, the sort of "Attractive Nuisance" defense
in criminal cases: "L&G of the jury, old Murgatroyd could not help but hot
wire that new Lincum Pimpmosine, setting there all bright, shiny and
unavoidable. He was flat forced into what the state calls car theft but is
not theft at all, simply uncontrollable compulsive test driving."

I expect that the "gun lobby" may have any number of silent corporate
allies, the manufacturers of products the potential misuse of which might
cause harm, injury or death. Just as with the "Dead Man's Switch" on power
mowers, many of the gunmakers have had to improve or add "safeties" on many
models (Winchester actually adding a "crossbolt" safety to its ancient
M1994), and I presume any number of manufacturers are sensitive to the
issue of liability through misuse represented by what are in effect "Class
Action" suits brought by local governments alleging multiple misuses
"multiplying" liability and damges.

TMO


.

Loading