9th Circuit Court of Appeals At It Again

[PhillyKev 0]

No, you said that it would lead to them and other specific industries being immune to lawsuits and discounted the notion that by passing this law, it could be used as a precedent to protect other industries.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Please define a safer weapon for me.

I don't really know enough about guns or the current technology surrounding them. But, maybe find a way so that only the rightful owner of the gun can shoot it?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

Please define a safer weapon for me.

I don't really know enough about guns or the current technology surrounding them. But, maybe find a way so that only the rightful owner of the gun can shoot it?

Ok...so then I have to buy more guns....one for everyone in my family, right? BTW, how would that prevent the rightful owner of a gun commiting a crime with it? That's what the bill is about.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Then I am sure a jury of 12 of your peers will make a similar decision. If not, maybe it is not such lunacy?

Of the dozen or more such lawsuits that have gone to trial, every one has been lost. That's not the problem.

The problem is the fact that so many people are filing unjustified lawsuits in the first place. Defending the multitude of lawsuits threatens to bankrupt the industry.

And this is part of the goal of the anti-gun organizations and politicans which fund these lawsuits. Even though they lose the cases in court, they can win by using taxpayer money to drive the companies out of business.

They hope to accomplish through lawsuit abuse what they are unable to accomplish by legislation. And that is wrong.

[billvon 3,111]

If the law applies to all such industries I'd support it. If it doesn't I don't.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

If the law applies to all such industries I'd support it. If it doesn't I don't.

Why is that? Because it's the gun industry or because you don't want any industry protected if it can't be applied to all? What if it were in relation to AIDS research, or environmental clean up industries. Would you still be impartially opposed to it because it singles out an industry for protection that you agree they should have (as long as everyone else has it)?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

If its proven that the manufactors are clearly making more guns then they know the market can legally support, then thats an issue they need to address without a lawsuit.

They can't prove that, except with biased junk science.

Every single new gun that a dealer sells is done with the personal approval of the FBI. And those are therefore legal purchases. The manufacturers do not sell directly to criminals. If a dealer sells to criminals illegally, then it is the job of police and the BATF to prosecute the dealer.

What they imply with this claim is that some kind of gun rationing scheme should be set up, whereby government determines how many guns "should" be sold to satisfy the legal market, and then gun owners will have to fight over that finite supply, paying exorbitant prices for the smaller number of available guns.

It's all BS.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

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

Of course not, you wouldn't dare offer an opinion that might open you up to the same kind of criticism that you so fondly give to everyone else.

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.

They wouldn't be unique. Many other industries have been given such protection to keep them from being driven into bankruptcy. Aircraft manufacturers, for example, enjoy some lawsuit immunity. Otherwise, companies like Cessna and Piper wouldn't exist any more.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

If a dealer sells to criminals illegally, then it is the job of police and the BATF to prosecute the dealer.

dealers would be protected by this new law as well.

[leroydb 0]

you gota be joking me? one word, "responsibility"
I knwo I am not that old, but maybe I grew up in a different era. I dont blame my parents for shit I do, I dont blame anyone BUT MYSELF FOR STUFF I DO.

i feel sorry ofr the familes of the victims and all, but there should be limits... I know they need to greeive, but blaming everyone else is not the way to go abut it.... It wont bring them back.

Leroy


..I knew I was an unwanted baby when I saw my bath toys were a toaster and a radio...

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

If a dealer sells to criminals illegally, then it is the job of police and the BATF to prosecute the dealer.

Quote

dealers would be protected by this new law as well.

No. Dealers would not be exempt from prosecution if they sold guns illegally.

[JohnRich 4]

This reply is not specifically aimed at you. I'm just using it as a logical place to insert this information.

This is the statement from the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturer's Institute (SAAMI) on this legal issue.

"ABSOLUTE LIABILITY"

A Logical Analysis of an Illogical Legal Theory

INTRODUCTION

The concept of absolute liability is a relatively new and an extremely radical legal theory.

Summarily dismissed and rejected by trial and appellate courts when first advanced in the 1980's, the absolute liability theory has been resurrected of late by a contingent of plaintiffs' attorneys whose motivation would appear to be more legal shenanigans than legal justice.

In its simplest terms, absolute liability holds that the manufacturer of a non-defective firearm (and theoretically any other product) should be held absolutely liable for any damage that results from the use of that product - including blatant criminal misuse. Under the theory of absolute liability, there is no consideration for how carefully a product may have been manufactured, no consideration for how responsibly it may have been marketed and no consideration for how many laws may have been violated in the course of an individual obtaining or using the firearm. All that matters is that if you made it and it is used to intentionally injure someone, you are liable - no defense, regardless of circumstances.

BACKGROUND

In reviewing the rationale for the concept of absolute liability, it is appropriate and enlightening to consider the motivation behind the concept.

Absolute liability is not sought by firearms consumer groups seeking relief from injuries caused by a grossly defective product. It is not a concept advanced by a significant number of judges or attorneys seeking to correct a major flaw in the legal system, and it is not proposed by the Congress or state legislatures acting in response to anew societal need.

The impetus behind the concept of absolute liability comes, instead, from trial lawyers seeking to gain financial awards and to further a political agenda. The plaintiff's bar is actually funding some of these efforts.

In the early 1980's, a number of product liability lawsuits were filed seeking to hold the manufacturers of firearms "absolutely liable" for damages resulting from the criminal misuse of their product. These lawsuits did not suggest that the products were defective or that the manufacturers were negligent. The only claim was that manufacturers of a product in these cases a firearm - should be absolutely responsible for any injuries caused by that product even if those injuries were the result of an illegal act. We do not know if these enterprising plaintiffs' attorneys planned to expand this legal theory to automobiles, baseball bats or gasoline if they were successful, because fortunately they were not. As law and common sense would dictate, all of these cases were either summarily dismissed as a matter of law or rejected by juries. An ill-conceived chapter in legal history should have ended there, but has not.

As part of an extreme "gun control" effort, funded in part by trial lawyers, some plaintiffs are again seeking money damages under this failed legal theory. Some legislatures are also being requested to enact this type of unprecedented product liability against firearm and ammunition manufacturers, again by "anti-gun" special interest groups.

The fact that venerable, responsible manufacturers of sporting firearms might be put out of business, and thousands made jobless, as a result of such convoluted legal theory is of no concern to the purveyors of the absolute liability concept. Indeed - it is their intention. Almost certainly under this theory, all manufacturing of firearms and ammunition could cease, and the manufacturer of every single product now in existence would still be subject to ruinous financial liability, without any defenses whatsoever. Police and armed forces would be without a source of firearms. And yet, criminals would be completely unaffected by "absolute liability" unfairly imposed upon lawful manufacturers.

GENERAL COMMENTS

Commerce in firearms is regulated by thousands of federal, state and local laws and regulations. A firearm produced by a federally licensed manufacturer in Connecticut, for example, may be shipped to a federally licensed distributor in Ohio and then to a federally licensed retailer in California for sale to the individual user. The serial number of the firearm and identity of the purchaser is recorded during each and every stage of this transaction. The firearm might be used for many years by its original owner in target shooting competitions or for hunting. However, if it is stolen from its lawful owner, illegally sold to a gang
member and used in a serious crime, the manufacturer of that firearm would be held liable for its criminal use, according to the theory of absolute liability.

While the current absolute liability effort focuses on firearms, it would establish a precedent for other legislation directed at manufacturers and sellers of any type of product - whether it be toys, mopeds, knives, pharmaceuticals, skateboards, swimming pools or any other product which the plaintiffs' lawyers deemed undesirable for any reason.

The theory of liability for "ultrahazardous activity," sometimes cited as a precedent for absolute liability, has only been applied in cases in which the person in control of an "ultrahazardous activity" has caused harm. Thus, we do impose liability upon users of dynamite for any damages that may result from its use. But we do not impose that liability on the manufacturer of the dynamite. Similarly, we penalize drunk drivers harshly, but we do not impose absolute liability upon manufacturers of nondefective alcohol or automobiles.

Firearms and ammunition are subject to exactly the same product liability laws as any other product. If they are found to be "defective" in design or manufacture (the pre-requisite for any product liability) their manufacturers must pay damages. "Absolute liability" would impose manufacturer's liability for defectless products, which is absolutely without precedent.

PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES

The members of The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, and their employees, share with all Americans a concern about the scourge of violent, often drug-related crimes in the country-particularly in urban areas. However, SAAMI does not believe that imposing responsibility for the consequences of these illegal activities on those who lawfully and responsibly manufacture firearms will deter criminals from engaging in criminal acts.

SAAMI believes that to hold a manufacturer financially responsible for the illegal and criminal use of a lawfully manufactured and regulated product is an inversion of responsibility and an irrational and ineffective policy response to a societal - not a product liability - problem.

It must be asked, if a firearm manufacturer should be held absolutely liable for injuries resulting from the criminal misuse of his non-defective product, does it follow that the same manufacturer should also be held liable for injuries resulting from the lawful use of his product, i.e. injury to a criminal by a homeowner or law enforcement officer acting in self defense?

The answer is obvious - no product becomes legally or mechanically "defective" simply because a person intentionally misuses it.

LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

The theory of absolute liability is a distortion of the well-established legal concept of strict product liability and is not law in any of the 50 states. For a manufacturer to be held strictly liable, there must be something wrong with the product which proximately causes an injury. In the case of a firearm, the product remains the same whether it is used for hunting, law enforcement, personal protection, organized competition, or is intentionally misused by a criminal. The advocates of absolute liability suggest that the firearm became defective when, but only when, it was used illegally.

Understandably, there is no legal precedent which holds that a product, including a firearm, can be considered "defective" at such time that it might be used illegally. The vast majority of firearms are used safely and responsibly, as intended by their manufacturers.

Courts in at least 24 states have wisely and properly rejected this theory, including Ohio, New Mexico, Florida, Texas, Massachusetts, New York, Kentucky, Georgia, Illinois, Mississippi, Washington, Louisiana, Alaska, Oregon, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Colorado, Hawaii, Michigan, California, Missouri, and Wisconsin. In Maryland, one court supported a version of this theory, but it was legislatively abrogated in the very next season of the legislature. Some states, such as California, have actually forbidden such "absolute liability" lawsuits by statute.

The notion of absolute liability also contravenes established Constitutional principles. It is fundamentally unreasonable and capricious and thus violates substantive due process.

CONCLUSION

SAAMI opposes absolute liability for the manufacturers of firearms, ammunition or any other product, and urges its continued rejection. SAAMI believes that to hold any manufacturer absolutely responsible for the deliberate and criminal misuse of their lawful and defectless product, is an inappropriate public policy, an illogical response to societal problems, and has serious legal and Constitutional flaws.

Many of those who support the concept of absolute liability acknowledge that their primary motivation is to eliminate or dramatically reduce the manufacture and distribution of firearms, even though the activity is lawful, licensed, and sanctioned by the Federal and State Governments. Firearms are lawful products, used responsibly by millions of Americans. The opportunity of these individuals to lawfully use and own firearms should not be denied by the whims of those who seek to curtail firearms production to satisfy their own personal, financial or political
agendas.

The members of The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute reject the concept of absolute liability as contrary to law and common sense and not in the best interest of the American public. The criminal misuse of legitimate products is a criminal justice issue and should be treated as such.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

If a dealer sells to criminals illegally, then it is the job of police and the BATF to prosecute the dealer.

dealers would be protected by this new law as well.

Even after I posted the bill, you still could not bother to read it?

Quote

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.

Or do you not understand the difference between civil and criminal court cases? Selling to a criminal is illegal. That falls under criminal law. It has nothing to do with this bill. This bill covers civil liability actions, commonly known as lawsuits. See the difference now?

Next time, feel free to ask questions. Or do the research yourself. Both are good choices. The bad choice is showing up and making weak arguments based on faulty logic and incorrect facts.

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

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I don't really know enough about guns or the current technology surrounding them. But, maybe find a way so that only the rightful owner of the gun can shoot it?

Several companies have been working on that for years, and they still haven't got it working well enough to sell to the public or police.

Even if they do get it working, there are still problems with the technology.

Here are some tidbits on this issue:

"A survey by the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, found that among people unlikely to buy a standard gun, one-third would consider purchasing a "smart" weapon--one that can only be fired by its
authorized user. Gun maker Colt estimates that "smart" guns could add 60 million new firearms owners."

That one would really get the anti-gunner's goat - they would actually be increasing gun ownership if they get their way...

"After the horror of Columbine, for gun-control advocates from the White House on down to say [safety reforms such as trigger locks and smart guns] would have any real effect is laughable," said Josh
Sugarmann, head of the Violence Policy Center. "Not only will smart guns have little effect on decreasing gun deaths and injury, we think it will actually increase gun deaths. It will put more guns on the street." Moreover, Sugarmann said his research shows that the "smart" gun initiative is misguided because it would do nothing to prevent the large numbers of gun deaths caused by people firing their own weapons--often spouses in domestic disputes, for instance, or
suicides."

Thus, even some of the anti-gun people don't agree with this idea.

And then there is this one:

So-called "smart guns" would be far less fail safe than mechanical guns. With about 70 officers killed per year, and 10% of those being killed with their own gun", the number of potential lives that could be saved with this technology is 7 officers per year. Now, of those potential seven, how many would actually be saved by a so-called "smart gun". Not all, certainly. If half were saved, that's three to four lives per
year. So the question is, if "smart guns" might save the lives of these very few officers each year who are shot with their own guns, you must now weigh that potential benefit against the very real possibility that even more officers would be killed because of unreliable smart guns. The law of unintended consequences could well result in so-called "smart guns" costing more lives, than they save. Let's examine these pros and cons with some math. How many officers fire their guns in self-defense each year? I don't know, but let's see what happens using percentages. Even if so-called smart guns were as much as 99% reliable, then you only need 1,000 officer self-defense shootings to produce ten cases where their guns failed to protect them. And out of
those ten cases, the number that might end up dead because of that could easily exceed those three to four that were saved by "smart gun" technology. And this is just an example of the mathematical comparison. I think the number of officers shooting in self-defense each year is probably far higher than the 1,000 used for illustration here, thus making so-called "smart guns" look even less smart.

These kinds of things are just the tip of the iceberg with this concept.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Or do you not understand the difference between civil and criminal court cases? Selling to a criminal is illegal. That falls under criminal law. It has nothing to do with this bill. This bill covers civil liability actions, commonly known as lawsuits. See the difference now?

Not to mention the fact that they could still be sued civilly for commiting the criminal act of illegally selling it themselves. They are not a 3rd party.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

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

Of course not, you wouldn't dare offer an opinion that might open you up to the same kind of criticism that you so fondly give to everyone else.

.

The reason for having jury trials is that the jury hears all the evidence, is (supposedly) uninfluenced by extraneous considerations, is chosen to be (as far as possible) free from bias, and comes to a considered verdict.

You, John Rich, have not heard all the evidence, and you have a previously stated bias. Yet you feel fit to pronounce judgement. Well, I don't. If I were in the courtroom and heard what the jury hears, I would. I am really appalled that you and your ilk should wish to deprive an injured party of their day in court because of your preconceived notions.

...

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

[Kennedy 0]

You're full of . . .

One and only warning.

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

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

You have not heard all the evidence, ...yet you feel fit to pronounce judgement. Well, I don't. If I were in the courtroom and heard what the jury hears, I would. I am really appalled that you and your ilk should wish to deprive an injured party of their day in court because of your preconceived notions.

You're full of shit, and that's all there is to it. You know damned well that we have read more on the subject than you have. I have read the transcripts form Boston's lawsuit, and a number of others. I have heard what the jury has heard. I have also read a great deal more than any jury will ever hear. I know that jurisprudence says no such lawsuit will ever be upheld. You should understand that these repetitive lawsuits are intended to accomplish what advocates could not through legislation. They are an injured party, but they seek the wrong target, so this will guide them. They will save money on their lawsuits because they will not file suits that cannot win. They are not losing their day in court, they are gaining what they would otherwise have wasted.

reply]

People said exactly the same about tobacco lawsuits. No-one ever won against big tobacco companies --- until one day they did.

If you don't trust juries to come to the right decision, perhaps you should emigrate to Cuba or N. Korea.

...

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

• Quote

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

People said exactly the same about tobacco lawsuits. No-one ever won against big tobacco companies --- until one day they did.

True, but the difference is the tobacco companies actually did something wrong. As has been discussed, they intentionally made their products more addictive and more unhealthy. But be honest, did people really think cigarettes were healthy? They wake up one morning and go "Oh F@#%ing Hell! I thought they were good for me, with Vitamin C and $hit." That what happened?

Quote

No-one ever won against big tobacco companies --- until one day they did. If you don't trust juries to come to the right decision, perhaps you should emigrate to Cuba or N. Korea.

Well, I wrote my congressman, and he'd love to help, but according some old document with some amendments, we can't ban you. OK, legislation is out. I think I'll invite phillykev, johnrich, skydivr, and a few others and we'll sue you kallend. Repeatedly. What for? Oh, how about public nuisance. How about flooding the forums with more BS than the market supports. How about we just make up some other ridiculous claims.

I'm sure we won't win at first. But the legal fees just might bury you, and force you to liquidate your computer. Our suits will be junk, but hey, we may just uncover some wrong-doing. Either way once you sell your computer to pay legal fees, we accomplish what we wanted. We attain our goals even though we never passed legislation banning you and we never won a case.

Juries are a byproduct of the trials. Their decisions are irrelevant here because no one expects to win. The legal fees are enough.

I wonder how 'mainstream' you are, seeing as more than thirty states passed this sort of legislation, the house passed it easily, unions and manufacturers in every field I can think of support it, and the majority of senators are for it. What makes you think YOU know better than the rest of us?

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

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

People said exactly the same about tobacco lawsuits. No-one ever won against big tobacco companies --- until one day they did.

The fallacy of this particular argument as pertains to gun lawsuits has been explained again and again. You don't mind walking on wet paint, do you prof?

. . =(_8^(1)

[SkydiverRick 0]

The bad choice is showing up and making weak arguments based on faulty logic and incorrect facts.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

People said exactly the same about tobacco lawsuits. No-one ever won against big tobacco companies --- until one day they did.

The fallacy of this particular argument as pertains to gun lawsuits has been explained again and again. You don't mind walking on wet paint, do you prof?

If I say, over and over again, the sky is green and the grass is purple, does that make it so?

...

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

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

If I say, over and over again, the sky is green and the grass is purple, does that make it so?

Absolutely! But only in your eyes.

. . =(_8^(1)

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

People said exactly the same about tobacco lawsuits. No-one ever won against big tobacco companies --- until one day they did.

True, but the difference is the tobacco companies actually did something wrong. As has been discussed, they intentionally made their products more addictive and more unhealthy. But be honest, did people really think cigarettes were healthy? They wake up one morning and go "Oh F@#%ing Hell! I thought they were good for me, with Vitamin C and $hit." That what happened?

Quote

No-one ever won against big tobacco companies --- until one day they did. If you don't trust juries to come to the right decision, perhaps you should emigrate to Cuba or N. Korea.

Well, I wrote my congressman, and he'd love to help, but according some old document with some amendments, we can't ban you. OK, legislation is out. I think I'll invite phillykev, johnrich, skydivr, and a few others and we'll sue you kallend. Repeatedly. What for? Oh, how about public nuisance. How about flooding the forums with more BS than the market supports. How about we just make up some other ridiculous claims.

I'm sure we won't win at first. But the legal fees just might bury you, and force you to liquidate your computer. Our suits will be junk, but hey, we may just uncover some wrong-doing. Either way once you sell your computer to pay legal fees, we accomplish what we wanted. We attain our goals even though we never passed legislation banning you and we never won a case.

Juries are a byproduct of the trials. Their decisions are irrelevant here because no one expects to win. The legal fees are enough.

I wonder how 'mainstream' you are, seeing as more than thirty states passed this sort of legislation, the house passed it easily, unions and manufacturers in every field I can think of support it, and the majority of senators are for it. What makes you think YOU know better than the rest of us?

I don't, but on the whole I trust juries to make the right decision.

This proposal will prevent a jury from ever hearing a case where, just possibly, a gun manufacturer is actually at fault. It's apparent that you think the Sun shines from the gun industry's collective backside, but history shows that no industry is immune from wrongdoing.

The whole tort system needs reform, not just a piecemeal industry by industry cherry picking.

...

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

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

This proposal will prevent a jury from ever hearing a case where, just possibly, a gun manufacturer is actually at fault.

No, no, no, and again, no. If the manufacturers et al protected by this bill ever actually do something that falls under the category of illegal or liable, they can be sued. This just stops a particular set of lawsuits that are not based in law. It says you can't sue them for making their products. Hence "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms." It doesn't say protection of all commerce in arms.

And you can still go out and sue them for your ridiculous reasons after the bill becomes law. 99% of judges would throw it out before it goes to court. (kind of like what happens now, except we save everyone hundreds of thouseands of dollars)

If you consider making and selling guns to be at fault, maybe they will be found guilty one of these days. But those of us who understand civil law know that they never will.

Quote

It's apparent that you think the Sun shines from the gun industry's collective backside, but history shows that no industry is immune from wrongdoing.

And just so you know, I am friends with a man who sued a gun company and won. Why did he win? Because the product was faulty and did not function as designed or as a reasonable man would expect it to. (the model had a bad tendency for the frame to shatter after a few dozens rounds)

The question is what do you qualify as wrongdoing. If you consider their being in business wrongdoing, then I understand why you would oppose S. 659. If, on the other hand, you happen to agree with a few centuries of common law, I don't see how you can be against it.

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