9th Circuit Court of Appeals At It Again

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Ford and GE don't have politically motivated groups trying to drum them out of business from the cost of continually defending themselves in court.

Right, there are no environmental groups and Ford and GE barely spend any time in courtrooms

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I thought you guys were so high on freedom. Why would you want to restrict someone the freedom to sue those companies if he/she so wishes. It is then up to the judge and jury to try the case. That is how the system is supposed to work.

It is a little rediculous to start whining about freedoms in one thread and then squashing some elses freedom because it doesn't fit with your views. One or the other gentlemen.

Once again, you misunderstand what freedom means. It means free to do whatever you want as long as it does not infringe on someone else's freedom. Tying someone up with frivolous lawsuits in an effort to make them conform to your will, is infringing on their freedom.

Freedom does not equal being able to sue anyone anytime you want. It does not equal being able to do whatever you want. That's anarchy.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Once again, you misunderstand what freedom means. It means free to do whatever you want as long as it does not infringe on someone else's freedom. Tying someone up with frivolous lawsuits in an effort to make them conform to your will, is infringing on their freedom.

Freedom does not equal being able to sue anyone anytime you want. It does not equal being able to do whatever you want. That's anarchy.

But you have already given this particular freedom to the people. Just think of the tobacco companies and all the suits they face(d). Many companies and people face frivolous lawsuits on a daily basis, it is one of the jokes aften made about the US. Why would you now all of a sudden need to protect the gun industry if you do not offer this protection to the other industries?

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

I thought you guys were so high on freedom. Why would you want to restrict someone the freedom to sue those companies if he/she so wishes. It is then up to the judge and jury to try the case. That is how the system is supposed to work.

It is a little rediculous to start whining about freedoms in one thread and then squashing some elses freedom because it doesn't fit with your views. One or the other gentlemen.

Once again, you misunderstand what freedom means. It means free to do whatever you want as long as it does not infringe on someone else's freedom. Tying someone up with frivolous lawsuits in an effort to make them conform to your will, is infringing on their freedom.

Freedom does not equal being able to sue anyone anytime you want. It does not equal being able to do whatever you want. That's anarchy.

What is so special about gun makers that they should be given special immunity and Ford or GM or your local DZ isn't? A system already exists for dealing with frivolous suits - how about enforcing existing laws (echos of an NRA argument there).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

I object to one class of corporation (gun manufacturers) enjoying an immunity that Ford or GM or GE or Stanley Tools or my neighborhood dry cleaner doesn't enjoy.

Ford and GE don't have politically motivated groups trying to drum them out of business from the cost of continually defending themselves in court.

Do you understand the concept of freedom of expression?

Dozens of industries face political pressures: chemical, paper, logging, oil, gas, auto, mining, ranching, pharmaceutical...

I don't see all of them going whining to Congress for special immunity.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PhillyKev 0]

I'm all for cutting out frivolous lawsuits in general. Why the special treatment for gun manufacturers? Because they are being systematically targetted by municipal and state governments.

And regarding tobacco companies, they deliberately lied about their products safety and designed they specifically to be addictive. They deliberately put the holes in filters in a place you would cover with your lips or fingers so that their product would not work as advertised.

Gun manufacturers deliberately warn you 8000 different ways about the dangerous aspects of their product, and even promote and provide free safety training in many cases.

Tobacco companies wanted you to use their product in a manner that is unsafe to you in order to increase their product. Gun manufacturers want to make the safest product they can, that does what it is designed to do.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

I'm all for cutting out frivolous lawsuits in general. Why the special treatment for gun manufacturers? Because they are being systematically targetted by municipal and state governments.

Oh - those elected bodies that represent the community. Yes, I can see how they are intrinsically evil and anti-democratic.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,111]

>If a hammer is used to kill somebody, do you sue Craftsman? If a
>drunk kills someone in his car, do you sue Ford?

It's been done.

>If a beer bottle is used to kill somebody, do you sue Anheuser
>-Busch?

It's been done. (A beer company was sued because a drunk driver killed someone.)

Cessna was once sued because a pilot deliberately taxiied his airplane into a fuel tanker. A car battery manufacturer was once sued because there was no warning that said "do not drink the contents." A woman in Texas won $780,000 from a furniture store because she tripped over her own son. Another woman successfully sued a restaraunt because she slipped in a soda she had just thrown at her boyfriend. Groups have sued McDonald's for making them fat. Square One was sued because a packing data card that said "Square One" was found in the rig of a man who went in. Square One had no other connection to the rig.

Stupid lawsuits are everywhere. I'd be all for tort reform, but against any law that protects some industries against lawsuits but not others.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Bar Rule #11 should apply in cases such as these. The uneducated masses don't comprehend that lawsuits cost these corporations money, and that corporations do not have an endless supply of money. That's the left's plan to win on the gun control issue - sue the companies into bankruptcy.

Almost makes me wish for a loser-pays legal system.

Are these uneducated masses the same ones we select juries from in capital cases? Could it be that the Right trusts the uneducated masses to recommend a death sentence but not to make a rational decision in a civil lawsuit?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

and I'm sure if they did, we would see a "protection of lawful commerce in _____" if they were.

I think of this bill as codifying judicial precedent. They have not and will not succeed, so we will stop them before they cost everyone money and tie up our legal system. That seems rational to me.

How many times have auto makers been propped up with tax dollars? And airlines? If you read the bill, they explain themselves.

Auto makers have the technology to make cars more efficient and cleaner without making them harder to use. They don't so greenies sue them, saying they should. (elf and alf freaks, not our moderators)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

I had hoped to avoid posting the entire bill, but people don't seem to be able to follow a link and type six characters, so here it is:

Quote

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 659
To prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 19, 2003
Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. BOND, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. BUNNING, Mr. BURNS, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. COLEMAN, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. CRAPO, Mrs. DOLE, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. ENZI, Mr. FRIST, Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. GREGG, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. HATCH, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. KYL, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mrs. LINCOLN, Mr. LOTT, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. MILLER, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, Mr. NICKLES, Mr. REID, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. SMITH, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. SUNUNU, Mr. TALENT, and Mr. THOMAS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

(a) FINDINGS- The Congress finds the following:

(1) Citizens have a right, protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, to keep and bear arms.

(2) Lawsuits have been commenced against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms that operate as designed and intended, which seek money damages and other relief for the harm caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including criminals.

(3) The manufacture, importation, possession, sale, and use of firearms and ammunition in the United States are heavily regulated by Federal, State, and local laws. Such Federal laws include the Gun Control Act of 1968, the National Firearms Act, and the Arms Export Control Act.

(4) Businesses in the United States that are engaged in interstate and foreign commerce through the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, importation, or sale to the public of firearms or ammunition that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce are not, and should not, be liable for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products or ammunition products that function as designed and intended.

(5) The possibility of imposing liability on an entire industry for harm that is solely caused by others is an abuse of the legal system, erodes public confidence in our Nation's laws, threatens the diminution of a basic constitutional right and civil liberty, invites the disassembly and destabilization of other industries and economic sectors lawfully competing in the free enterprise system of the United States, and constitutes an unreasonable burden on interstate and foreign commerce of the United States.

(6) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal Government, States, municipalities, and private interest groups are based on theories without foundation in hundreds of years of the common law and jurisprudence of the United States and do not represent a bona fide expansion of the common law. The possible sustaining of these actions by a maverick judicial officer or petit jury would expand civil liability in a manner never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution, by Congress, or by the legislatures of the several States. Such an expansion of liability would constitute a deprivation of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

(b) PURPOSES- The purposes of this Act are as follows:

(1) To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products for the harm caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.

(2) To preserve a citizen's access to a supply of firearms and ammunition for all lawful purposes, including hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive or recreational shooting.

(3) To guarantee a citizen's rights, privileges, and immunities, as applied to the States, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to section 5 of that Amendment.

(4) To prevent the use of such lawsuits to impose unreasonable burdens on interstate and foreign commerce.

(5) To protect the right, under the First Amendment to the Constitution, of manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and trade associations, to speak freely, to assemble peaceably, and to petition the Government for a redress of their grievances.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON BRINGING OF QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTIONS IN FEDERAL OR STATE COURT.

(a) IN GENERAL- A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court.

(b) DISMISSAL OF PENDING ACTIONS- A qualified civil liability action that is pending on the date of enactment of this Act shall be immediately dismissed by the court in which the action was brought.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS- The term `engaged in the business' has the meaning given that term in section 921(a)(21) of title 18, United States Code, and, as applied to a seller of ammunition, means a person who devotes, time, attention, and labor to the sale of ammunition as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of ammunition.

(2) MANUFACTURER- The term `manufacturer' means, with respect to a qualified product, a person who is engaged in the business of manufacturing the product in interstate or foreign commerce and who is licensed to engage in business as such a manufacturer under chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code.

(3) PERSON- The term `person' means any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, joint stock company, or any other entity, including any governmental entity.

(4) QUALIFIED PRODUCT- The term `qualified product' means a firearm (as defined in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 921(a)(3) of title 18, United States Code), including any antique firearm (as defined in section 921(a)(16) of such title), or ammunition (as defined in section 921(a)(17) of such title), or a component part of a firearm or ammunition, that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

(5) QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTION-

(A) IN GENERAL- The term `qualified civil liability action' means a civil action brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include--

(i) an action brought against a transferor convicted under section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code, or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so convicted;

(ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;

(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly and willfully violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought;

(iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product; or

(v) an action for physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended.

(B) NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT- In subparagraph (A)(ii), the term `negligent entrustment' means the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person and others.

(6) SELLER- The term `seller' means, with respect to a qualified product--

(A) an importer (as defined in section 921(a)(9) of title 18, United States Code) who is engaged in the business as such an importer in interstate or foreign commerce and who is licensed to engage in business as such an importer under chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code;

(B) a dealer (as defined in section 921(a)(11) of title 18, United States Code) who is engaged in the business as such a dealer in interstate or foreign commerce and who is licensed to engage in business as such a dealer under chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code; or

(C) a person engaged in the business of selling ammunition (as defined in section 921(a)(17) of title 18, United States Code) in interstate or foreign commerce at the wholesale or retail level, consistent with Federal, State, and local law.

(7) STATE- The term `State' includes each of the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other territory or possession of the United States, and any political subdivision of any such place.

(8) TRADE ASSOCIATION- The term `trade association' means any association or business organization (whether or not incorporated under Federal or State law) that is not operated for profit, and 2 or more members of which are manufacturers or sellers of a qualified product.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Stupid lawsuits are everywhere. I'd be all for tort reform, but against any law that protects some industries against lawsuits but not others.

So write your congressman. I have. And you'll notice one my major domestic political concerns is on the schedule. You know how happy I'd be if the entire legal system underwent a successful reform?

(though they might as well change the system to say 60 votes to pass anything in the senate, since a filibuster is killing every third important bill)

Also, they specifically detailed their reason for the bill in its text.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[PhillyKev 0]

I noticed the word "once" in your post a lot. That's a lot different than systematic. And how many all encompassing laws have ever been passed. Seems to me that most law in this country is based on precedent. So wouldn't it seem to you that this could be used as precedent to pass further tort reform?

[billvon 3,111]

> And how many all encompassing laws have ever been passed.

Check out http://www.atrafoundation.org/about_project.html for some background info. None, as far as I know.

> Seems to me that most law in this country is based on precedent.
> So wouldn't it seem to you that this could be used as precedent to
> pass further tort reform?

I don't think so. A law that singles out a certain industry for protection will be used as precedent to exempt other certain industries for protection; since each will be a different decision, each will likely provide different protections. And the end result will be that (say) gun manufacturers, tobacco companies, manufacturers of infant toys and drug makers are immune to lawsuits, and (say) hospitals and restaraunts are not. That will result in a drug manufacturer making a faulty drug - and the hospital getting sued. Every time. That's not progress.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

And regarding tobacco companies, they deliberately lied about their products safety and designed they specifically to be addictive. They deliberately put the holes in filters in a place you would cover with your lips or fingers so that their product would not work as advertised.

Yes and it took lawsuits and the research that went into them to find that out. What if there had been a law that protected them?

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I though I made it clear that I'm not passing judgement in this or another case.

In principle you can sue anyone for anything. Doesn't mean you'll win.

I don't see that anyone or any company should be immune from suits UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM.

I object to one class of corporation (gun manufacturers) enjoying an immunity that Ford or GM or GE or Stanley Tools or my neighborhood dry cleaner doesn't enjoy.

Does that mean I like the current system overall? No - I think tort reform is long overdue - FOR EVERYONE.

Is that clear enough?

OK, when did you make it clear you hadn't passed judgement? You seem to be attacking arguments on only one side of the issue, so don't give me this "I'm the voice of reason" garbage.

Gun manufacturers are more than a separate class of corporation. They have SAAMI. They are relevant to the safety of citizens, and this country. They are involved in a Constitutional right. So their treratment is already different, and I would not say privileged.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

And regarding tobacco companies, they deliberately lied about their products safety and designed they specifically to be addictive. They deliberately put the holes in filters in a place you would cover with your lips or fingers so that their product would not work as advertised.

Yes and it took lawsuits and the research that went into them to find that out. What if there had been a law that protected them?

What are you looking for here? There have been lawsuits and they have found nothing. And what is it that you think the manufacturers are doing wrong? Why are they being sued? Because their products function exactly as designed?

If that's the case, go pass legislation changing how they are allowed to do business. Enough legislating from the bench. Would you rather have a judge make the law for us all, or our elected representatives?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Quote

Ford and GE don't have politically motivated groups trying to drum them out of business from the cost of continually defending themselves in court.

Right, there are no environmental groups and Ford and GE barely spend any time in courtrooms

If any environmental groups were using the court systems as a tool to drive the auto manufacturers out of business, then you might have a valid point. Auto manufacturers might then need some sort of relief in the form of immunity as well.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I don't think so. A law that singles out a certain industry for protection will be used as precedent to exempt other certain industries for protection; since each will be a different decision, each will likely provide different protections. And the end result will be that (say) gun manufacturers, tobacco companies, manufacturers of infant toys and drug makers are immune to lawsuits, and (say) hospitals and restaraunts are not. That will result in a drug manufacturer making a faulty drug - and the hospital getting sued. Every time.

Can I borrow your crystal ball? I want to know who's going to win the superbowl. And the next powerball winning numbers.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Gun manufacturers are more than a separate class of corporation. They have SAAMI. They are relevant to the safety of citizens, and this country. They are involved in a Constitutional right. So their treratment is already different, and I would not say privileged.

I thought it was the right to bear arms not the right to manufacture arms

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

Gun manufacturers are more than a separate class of corporation. They have SAAMI. They are relevant to the safety of citizens, and this country. They are involved in a Constitutional right. So their treratment is already different, and I would not say privileged.

I thought it was the right to bear arms not the right to manufacture arms

Well I'm glad you agree they are a separate class of corporation, that they are relevant to the safety of citizens, and this country.

As to your 'thought,' how do we do one without the other? Rather simple concept, I think.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

And the end result will be that (say) gun manufacturers, tobacco companies, manufacturers of infant toys and drug makers are immune to lawsuits,

How would they be immune to lawsuits? This only restricts lawsuits of a particular basis.
Those based on 3rd party criminal use of their product. Not on defects in materials or faulty products.

Should the manufacturer of Oxycotin be sued because some people sell them illegally?

Quote

(1) To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products for the harm caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Well I'm glad you agree they are a separate class of corporation, that they are relevant to the safety of citizens, and this country.

yeah ok

Quote

As to your 'thought,' how do we do one without the other? Rather simple concept, I think.

Forced to design safer weapons, bear different type of arms etc.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Forced to design safer weapons

Please define a safer weapon for me.

[billvon 3,111]

>How would they be immune to lawsuits? This only restricts lawsuits of
>a particular basis. Those based on 3rd party criminal use of their
>product. Not on defects in materials or faulty products.

As I've said, I'd have no problems with such a law as long as it applied to all industries rather than a specific one.