9th Circuit Court of Appeals At It Again

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

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.

My "ilk" includes 60 U.S. Senators who have promised to vote to pass this lawsuit abuse ban (S.659) when it is brought out of commitee for a vote. Amongst those Senators is Democrat Tom Daschle.

My "ilk" also includes the legislators of about 30 states, which have already passed similar legislation at the state level.

But then, maybe you know something more than all those lawmakers in all those places.

[kallend 2,146]

If you read what I wrote previously, you might recall that I am strongly in favor of tort reform in general (like the Republicans and contrary to most Democrats). I have been involved as an expert for the defense in several lawsuits that I considered frivolous and nuisance, including one where a gun maker was being sued because some idiot shot himself with his own gun while cleaning it. We won that one.

What I don't agree with is tort reform only for certain special interests.

The solution is for a$$hole lawyers who bring frivolous suits to court to be punished by a serious hit in the pocket book. The solution is not special protections for one industry.

...

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

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The solution is for a$$hole lawyers who bring frivolous suits to court to be punished by a serious hit in the pocket book. The solution is not special protections for one industry.

Right now that one industry is under attack, and deserves protection. And this step may lead to a more widespread abuse reform process, that can't come about soon enough right now to help the one in trouble. Therefore the limited solution proposed now to solve the existing problem is a step in the right direction, and should not be thrown out because it doesn't go far enough. "Far enough" can be added later.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

The solution is for a$$hole lawyers who bring frivolous suits to court to be punished by a serious hit in the pocket book. The solution is not special protections for one industry.

Right now that one industry is under attack, and deserves protection. And this step may lead to a more widespread abuse reform process, that can't come about soon enough right now to help the one in trouble. Therefore the limited solution proposed now to solve the existing problem is a step in the right direction, and should not be thrown out because it doesn't go far enough. "Far enough" can be added later.

Right now many industries are under attack. You are just sensitive to this particular one. Piecemeal solutions will just take off the pressure for a real solution.

...

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

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Right now many industries are under attack. You are just sensitive to this particular one. Piecemeal solutions will just take off the pressure for a real solution.

Well, it seems to me those many industries are supporting this "piecemeal solution." as seen on NAM site.

But you can ignore that (I kind of expect you to), but take a look here and specifically here. Boy, those other industries sure are worried about taking the pressure off...

If you only want congress to pass "far enough" legislation, you might as well tell them to go home and collect their paychecks, because nothing starts out "far enough." They're doing some serious healthcare work right now, and while no one thinks it goes "far enough," even the AARP is behind it.

Just because you can't get stitches for a gaping wound right away, that doesn't mean you should turn down bandaids.

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

[Jib 0]

Quote

Right now many industries are under attack. You are just sensitive to this particular one. Piecemeal solutions will just take off the pressure for a real solution.

All the legislature did was correct a potential and real interpretation of products liability law stating that a manufacturer is not liable when it's product is used for the purpose it was designed. Guns are rather unique in this regard because IMHO killing someone is not a malfunction and warnings of don't stick this in your mouth and pull the trigger, don't use as a prybar or if you shoot someone, they may die, are probably not necessary.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

His opinions seem to be emotion driven, backed more by hearsay than facts.

Not completely true.

I don't live in the US and have stated many times before that I really could care less if you carry guns or not. I really get a kick out of people telling me I should stop trying to take their freedom away.

I don't live in the US, I don't get to vote in the US and I do not make laws in the US. How the hell am i going to take your freedom away.

I do enjoy playing the devil's advocate from time to time. I find that specially with an issue like gun control people get highly emotional and make some pretty strong arguments.

I love how many put me immediately into a pigeon hole just because my argument doesn't match their opinions, or think that life is made up of a series of black and white options/choices.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Right now many industries are under attack. You are just sensitive to this particular one. Piecemeal solutions will just take off the pressure for a real solution.

And you would forego a partial solution because it doesn't go all the way? That ignores political realities. It is often impossible to garner sufficient support to do something all the way, all at once. Incrementalism is a legitimate strategy, which starts with one small step, and then builds upon that in future legislative sessions, so that over time you get more and more of what is needed. Once people see that the trial balloon didn't cause disaster, they are more willing to expand the change in the future.

You seem to be afraid to take the first step. An "all or nothing" strategy would fail, where incrementalism would not.

If it was anything but the gun industry that stood to reap a benefit, I'll bet you would be all in favor of it.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I don't live in the US and have stated many times before that I really could care less if you carry guns or not.

For someone who professes to "not care", you sure spend a lot of time arguing against guns. And I've never seen you protest an anti-gun argument.

Your actions speak louder than your words. We know where you stand, despite your quote above to the contrary.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

For someone who professes to "not care", you sure spend a lot of time arguing against guns. And I've never seen you protest an anti-gun argument.

Your actions speak louder than your words. We know where you stand, despite your quote above to the contrary. ***

I have no love for guns, that is quite obvious. Doesn't take away from the fact that I could care less if you get to carry them in the US. It doesn't affect me in the least. Hence, I find comments like "stop trying to take my freedom away" quite funny.

Since I also stated I liek playing devil's advocate, it should be somewhat obvious that my personal opinions and those brought forward in a discussion are not necessarily identical.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

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.

Um, Kennedy, I hate to break this to ya, but kallend is right in just about everything.

You seems to have a misunderstanding of the law. There are criminal actions. There are civil actions. THen, there are administrative actions. Capice?

All three are "lawsuits" with a plaintiff and defendant, i.e., "People of the State of California v. Jackson."

What the bill will do is prevent civil liability of gun manufacturers for the misuse of the guns. This means that the gun manufacturers, if they sell the weapons to a felon, face charges for that crime. It could be criminal or administrative. There may even be a civil penalty for that action.

However, the legislation would codify a simple idea under common law tort law - proximate cause. Anyone can say all they want about "but-for that gun being made, there would have been no shooting." But it does not mean that the gun manufacturers should be held liable for intervening willful acts of other tortfeasors, or even negligence of others.

I cut myself with a knife a couple of days ago. Cutco should therefore be sued, eh? The knife is, after all, designed to cut things. But, it is foreseeable tha knives could be used to cut people. Indeed, it happens all the time! I've got scars to show it!

I'm a lawyer. I can show the elements of a negligence cause of action against knife manufacturers and sellers. (Should felons be allowed to use steak knives? Hmmm). I can even demnstrate that the knife manufacturers have known for centuries that their products are being used for killing and assualts.

Why not go after knife manufacturers? Well, people did, and the courts and legislators thought it worty of an exception to the law.

We see it now in gun manufacturers. It's simple. A knife, a car, a pencil, a brick. All can be misused. Did Reginald Denny sue the brick manufacturers because Football Williams misused one? Hey, it is foreseeable that bricks can be weapons.

Open your mind up and break this thing down to the smallest parts possible. Don't get criminal v. civil v. administrative confused. If a guy sells a gun illegally, there are remedies for that. It's just hogwash when civil penalties attach for the bad conduct of downstream distributers and users.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

kallend is right in just about everything

I feel a new sig line coming on?

...

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

[Kennedy 0]

I said commonly referred to as lawsuits. The twelve idiots in the box tend to call it a trial for criminal and a lawsuit for civil, and most don't know what admin actions are or that they even exist.

Are you under the impression I oppose S. 659? I hate to break it to you, but Kallend is the one opposing this legislation. I am for it 100%.

I have no idea why you are attempting to explain to me that which I already understand and have posted in this very thread.

ps - since I have given it to everyone else, I have to tell you, that 'check spelling' button right next to 'post reply' is really quite handy.

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

[lawrocket 3]

Actually, I'll rephrase that quote. It was taken out of context.

Whether kallend reaches the right or wrong answer, his logic is impeccable.

You just happened to reach the right answer on this one.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Whether kallend reaches the right or wrong answer, his logic is impeccable.

You just happened to reach the right answer on this one.

His logic is impeccable, and I am arriving at the right answer, and he disagrees with me. Maybe your logic should be called into question here...

Do us both a favor. Go back and read this thread through. Then tell me where you got confused.

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

[lawrocket 3]

Well, kallend and I disagree on just about everything. I happen to agree with you here, as well.

Nevertheless, your tact is somewhat lacking. mind you, I do most of my typing on this forum. I don't believe my secretary would enjoy my dictation of a response to this.

Nevertheless, I disagree with kallend's stand on guns. I also agree wholeheartedly with kallend's discussions. Adn I agree with your stance on guns, now that it has been explained.

Isn't it amazing that I read some stuff heading down a thread and conclude that you, Kennedy, are opposed to guns? This comes from your statements that, due to the invective, actually got me to thinking you were arguing for something different.

Had I had time to read the whole thread, I might have had a better idea of it. Too bad a few flippant and ill-considered statements on your part led me to believe the opposite of the position you took.

My typing may be bad, but at least you got my point.

Your words lacked typos. They also lacked coherence.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

I said commonly referred to as lawsuits. The twelve idiots in the box tend to call it a trial for criminal and a lawsuit for civil, and most don't know what admin actions are or that they even exist.

Are you referring to your fellow citizen jurors as "twelve idiots"? The jury system is the foundation of our democracy. I can't imagine you'd like a return to a Star Chamber type of system (although Ashcroft probably would).

...

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

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

kallend is right in just about everything

Quote

Well, kallend and I disagree on just about everything.

This just gets better and better

...

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

[lawrocket 3]

No, kallend. Lest you forget that I made my compliments toward your logic. Your logic is great but you usually have the wrong answer.

Quit taking my quotes outta context! My goodness, you are wrong on this one!!!!! Such a spinmeister.

You should try law school. You'd do well!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

No, kallend. Lest you forget that I made my compliments toward your logic. Your logic is great but you usually have the wrong answer.

Quit taking my quotes outta context! My goodness, you are wrong on this one!!!!! Such a spinmeister.

You should try law school. You'd do well!

What possible purpose would be served by turning a perfectly good scientist into another a$$hole? Your logic is not impeccable.

...

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

[lawrocket 3]

I'm not an a$$hole.

I'm an attorney. THerefore, I am a whole a$$.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Are you referring to your fellow citizen jurors as "twelve idiots"? The jury system is the foundation of our democracy. I can't imagine you'd like a return to a Star Chamber type of system (although Ashcroft probably would).

Yes, I am referring to my fellow citizens as idiots. The failure of public education is well documented and exceedingly widespread. So when twelve people are chosen at random, the likely of idiot inclusion is fairly high. How does that saying go?

Quote

A jury is composed of twelve schmucks not smart enough to get out of jury duty.

It's a sad statement, but that doesn't make it false.

I fear Ashcroft's dreams as much as Schumer's and Clinton's. I won't argue with you there.

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

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Are you referring to your fellow citizen jurors as "twelve idiots"? The jury system is the foundation of our democracy. I can't imagine you'd like a return to a Star Chamber type of system (although Ashcroft probably would).

Yes, I am referring to my fellow citizens as idiots. The failure of public education is well documented and exceedingly widespread. So when twelve people are chosen at random, the likely of idiot inclusion is fairly high. How does that saying go?

Quote

A jury is composed of twelve schmucks not smart enough to get out of jury duty.

It's a sad statement, but that doesn't make it false.

I fear Ashcroft's dreams as much as Schumer's and Clinton's. I won't argue with you there.

How do you feel about someone being sentenced to death as a result of the deliberations of "twelve idiots"?

...

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

[Kennedy 0]

Seeing as the cost to sentence a convict to the death penalty is more than imprisoning them for life, it is impractical as well as unsettling.

However, the death penalty has more safe guards than the white house. Automatic reviews, rule upon rule required before sentencing. I'm not a fan, but I would not tell states they are wrong. I'm sure you can tell me something about Texas that I won't like, but that's not my home and not my control. I do see the value in it, and the problems.

Also, the jury to a capital trial is so selected and hand-picked that many times it seems patsy is a more appropriate term than idiot.

Back to the topic at hand, I ask you why you disagree with so many other industry groups, who back S. 659. This site and and this link show dozens of representatives for industry groups and unions are for the bill. They do not seem concerned that S. 659 will be a danger to their own protection. What do you think of their stance? Are you more worried about them than they are themselves?

Billvon, I ask you the same questions, as your stance against the bill seems very similar to Kallend's own.

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

[billvon 3,111]

>Billvon, I ask you the same questions, as your stance against the bill
>seems very similar to Kallend's own.

Let's take a very similar law - GARA (General Aviation Revitalization Act.) It basically removed liability for defects in aircraft over a certain age (18 years.) This reduced insurance premiums enough to get manufacturers back making airplanes.

Now, I'm a pilot. I like having more and newer airplanes available, so I was all for it. Indeed, Cessna began producing the 172, 182 and 206 as soon as it was passed. All good, right?

And indeed aviation manufacturers loved it. They immediately began showing profits; from 1994 to 2002 many showed record profits. Which makes sense; they were, after all, benefiting from a law that gave them a competitive advantage. Legal costs are becoming a huge part of most industries, not just GA, so immunity from certain kinds of prosecution goes directly to their bottom line.

Unfortunately, since it was narrowly targeted to one group (manufacturers) it had an effect opposite of what it intended. Lawyers simply shifted their sights to pilots, FBO's and aircraft repair facilities. In many cases it did more harm than good, since the lawsuits targeted the smaller aviation businesses who could not even afford to settle lawsuits, much less try them in court.

Some references:

"Survival for the small business operators is getting harder each day due to the General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA); the threat of financial devastation is real when it comes to lawsuits. The (GARA) defects lawsuits from manufacturers to aviation service providers. FBOs’ insurance rate are skyrocketing because of this, which contributes to the cycle by causing higher repair cost. Many small business operators really don’t want to take the chance and can’t afford the rising cost that’s associated with liability insurance."

http://www.digitaltermpapers.com/view.php?url=/Aviation/The_future_of_Aviation_Insurance.shtml

"GARA has had the adverse effect of changing the focus in general aviation air crash litigation from the manufacturer to the parties listed above."

http://archives.californiaaviation.org/ganews/msg09413.html


"The small flight schools and repair facilities are finding themselves unable to obtain insurance at all, or at a level they can afford. It is hard to blame the insurers who are now battling much higher hull repair costs, along with more plaintiff attorneys on behalf of aircraft owners and maintenance organizations (since the General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA) took effect five years ago and shifted the burden from the manufacturers)."

http://www.aviationinsurance.com/crisis.html


So like I said before, I'd be all for a law that helps prevent frivolous lawsuits against ALL aviation entities, from manufacturers to FBO's to pilots. A law that benefits just one of those entities didn't work in aviation. Neither will a law that benefits only gun manufacturers. The gun manufacturers will love it of course, but pork for one industry does not a good law make.