Re: US Senate chooses guns over ships.

"TOliver" <toliverjrFIX@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:sasGe.46277$gL1.10549@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

>
> "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).

But once the dealer legally sells a firearm to a government-approved
person(NICS check),why should ANY liability be assigned to the dealer?
(or distributor or manufacturer).
They no longer have ANY control over what is done with the legal product.
Only the end buyer bears responsibility if they transfer a fiream to a
criminal,an illegal act.

>
> 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
>
These lawsuits are NOT about any failures of the fiream to operate in the
expected manner.It's well known that if you pull the trigger,the gun is
expected to fire the cartridge.

The suits are about liability for what a criminal had intentionally done
with the firearm.
Not any "defective product" suit.

"defective product" lawsuits will still be able to be tried.
The Protection of Legal Commerce in Firearms Act will not bar "defective
product" lawsuits.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
.

Loading