Suing Gun Manufacturers

[TheDoctorWasIn]

That's why I'm curious about the 'misuse'. Were manufactures forced to make changes or just payouts?

I believe both.

 

[TurtleDude]

Sound waves are not restricted by man made boundaries
And yes, flyers should be restricted to private property



The state is prohibited from sentencing convicts to cruel and unusual punishment period



Actually yes

The right of silence doesn't apply to witnesses
If a person accepts a pardon, they lose the right to the protection of the 5th Amendment



Yes, it allows gun owners to keep and bear arms, and allows non gun owners the right to live in a gun free environment

Win:Win

where does the constitution say that you have a "right to live in a gun free environment" You can keep your home gun free, just as you can exclude blacks, gays, latinos and blue grass banjo players from your house but as you walk down the streets of our nation, you cannot claim your rights are such as to prevent blacks, gays, latinos, and blue grass banjo players from also being on those streets. same with gun owners

 

[RaleBulgarian]

So cute! And yes adorable Smirky Smirkerson, I do say.

Apparently, in addition to your clearly displayed insecurities overriding your better senses, leading you to tell ridiculous lies and make ridiculous claims, you aren’t capable of taking an obvious hint.

I’m totally fine with letting my posted words speak for themselves.

 

[Lursa]

Apparently, in addition to your clearly displayed insecurities overriding your better senses, leading you to tell ridiculous lies and make ridiculous claims, you aren’t capable of taking an obvious hint.

I’m totally fine with letting my posted words speak for themselves.

LOL Let me know when you and Smirky prove any of those 'lies.' Quotes please?

I put it all there for anyone to consider. The only one lying is you.

 

[Rich2018]

where does the constitution say that you have a "right to live in a gun free environment"

It doesn't, and I never said it did

You can keep your home gun free, just as you can exclude blacks, gays, latinos and blue grass banjo players from your house but as you walk down the streets of our nation, you cannot claim your rights are such as to prevent blacks, gays, latinos, and blue grass banjo players from also being on those streets. same with gun owners

I wouldn't seek to restrict gun owners to private property, just their guns.

 

[mrjurrs]

Well yes, it makes sense you should be able to sue a company of they sell defective products, if a product works in a way its not supposed to work. Now if somebody uses a product in a way they're not supposed to use it its the person who mis-used the product who should be held responsible not the company, as you said, apples and skyscrapers.

Not my point. A gun that blows up is a defective product. A gun when used as it is designed, like a cigarette, has costs that gun manufacturers should be liable for (imo)

 

[mrjurrs]

Be that as it may, with the rights identified by the BOR it is not for the government to decide if and what those limitations are.

The rights identified by the BOR are constants, they always have existed and they always will exist. They were not granted by the government and thus they can't be limited or taken away by the government.

Sorry but that would be an incorrect interpretation imo. Individual gun rights are generally added by the interpretation of Article 3. Anything done that way is subject to another law being passed that addresses the previous decision.

 

[TurtleDude]

It doesn't, and I never said it did



I wouldn't seek to restrict gun owners to private property, just their guns.

well, the really good news is that you are unable to do that

 

[TurtleDude]

Sorry but that would be an incorrect interpretation imo. Individual gun rights are generally added by the interpretation of Article 3. Anything done that way is subject to another law being passed that addresses the previous decision.

where was the federal government properly delegated power to interfere with the ability of private citizens to keep and bear, buy and obtain firearms?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

They're not boundaries, they're barriers

You tell yourself whatever you need to as long as you drop it because it's still not the point.

I didn't say the 2nd Amendment only applies to private property, I said that a law could be passed to make it so, and such a law would, IMO, not violate the 2nd Amendment

Which ultimately means the second amendment only applies to private property.

Yes they do

Except you keep saying they can be restricted at will on public property. Therefore, they don't.

Yes it does

Then why isn't is justifiable to shoot cops in the head just for carrying a gun?

Because they differ in the fact the one refers to an object and the other refers just to the person.

What the **** are you talking about? Where do you dig up these crackpot "theories?"

It doesn't need to that right follows a person wherever he is legally allowed to go
That is not the case with a gun
You may be allowed the 5th amendment in a courtroom, you're not allowed the 2nd Amendment there

That's not your premise. Your premise is that the second amendment can be abridged everywhere that's not private property. Why can't speech be abridged in the same way?

See above regarding an object and a person.

See above regarding where the **** do you get this crap?

 

[Glitch]

Well yes, it makes sense you should be able to sue a company of they sell defective products, if a product works in a way its not supposed to work. Now if somebody uses a product in a way they're not supposed to use it its the person who mis-used the product who should be held responsible not the company, as you said, apples and skyscrapers.

Under 15 U.S. Code § 7901(6) Congress makes it clear why the law protecting gun manufacturers was, and still is, necessary.

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.

Gun manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible, just like any other business. They are only exempt if someone intentionally uses their product for unlawful purposes. Only the one responsible for violating the law is liable for their actions, not the gun manufacturer.

 

[Glitch]

Not my point. A gun that blows up is a defective product. A gun when used as it is designed, like a cigarette, has costs that gun manufacturers should be liable for (imo)

One small problem with your analogy, if someone used a cigarette to assault and burn someone else it is the individual who has committed the crime that is held accountable, not the cigarette companies. The cigarette companies are only held liable for the damage they cause directly, not for the crimes that others may commit using their product.

 

[natman]

The courts disagreed, which is why the law was passed in the first place.

Ok, cite the case where a court allowed damages for illegal use of a gun.

 

[mrjurrs]

One small problem with your analogy, if someone used a cigarette to assault and burn someone else it is the individual who has committed the crime that is held accountable, not the cigarette companies. The cigarette companies are only held liable for the damage they cause directly, not for the crimes that others may commit using their product.

Come on Glitch, at least pretend you understand what I am saying. "Secondhand smoke is the combination of smoke from the burning end of a cigarette and the smoke breathed out by smokers. Secondhand smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals. Hundreds are toxic and about 70 can cause cancer. Since the 1964 Surgeon General’s Report, 2.5 million adults who were nonsmokers died because they breathed secondhand smoke. There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.

Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke

See the data and statistical information on the health effects of secondhand smoke.

www.cdc.gov

 

[Rich2018]

well, the really good news is that you are unable to do that

I take your silence as a tacit admission that you over-spoke and realize your error.

 

[Rich2018]

You tell yourself whatever you need to as long as you drop it because it's still not the point.

The point is that you can't distinguish between a boundary and a barrier

Which ultimately means the second amendment only applies to private property.

IMO, it could be ruled so by a law/court

Except you keep saying they can be restricted at will on public property. Therefore, they don't.

Please stop the over use of pro-nouns: "they" = rights or guns ?

Then why isn't is justifiable to shoot cops in the head just for carrying a gun?

Because they're AUTHORIZED to carry a gun

What the **** are you talking about? Where do you dig up these crackpot "theories?"

It's called grammar and in law "objects" and "people" are treated differently

...your premise is that the second amendment can be abridged everywhere that's not private property. Why can't speech be abridged in the same way?

"Abridged" refers to a shortened piece of writing

So either your comprehension or command of English would seem to be flawed

See above regarding where the **** do you get this crap?

Certainly not from any dictionary you use.

 

[TurtleDude]

I take your silence as a tacit admission that you over-spoke and realize your error.

more complete and utter bullshit. that isn't even responsive to my point that you cannot prevent lawful gun owners from doing anything

 

[OpportunityCost]

Not my point. A gun that blows up is a defective product. A gun when used as it is designed, like a cigarette, has costs that gun manufacturers should be liable for (imo)

Not when in legal use. Same for knives, cars, etc. Since when you can you hold a manufacturer liable for illegal use of their product?

 

[OpportunityCost]

The point is that you can't distinguish between a boundary and a barrier



IMO, it could be ruled so by a law/court



Please stop the over use of pro-nouns: "they" = rights or guns ?




Because they're AUTHORIZED to carry a gun



It's called grammar and in law "objects" and "people" are treated differently



"Abridged" refers to a shortened piece of writing

So either your comprehension or command of English would seem to be flawed




Certainly not from any dictionary you use.

FFS Heller already stated that restricting firearms to use within a person's home is infringing upon the rights detailed in the 2nd amendment and they are not conferred but recognized by such.

 

[joko104]

Are auto makers liable for injuries resulting fro selling full sized SUVs to suburban women?

(OK, that's a bad joke)

 

[Lursa]

FFS Heller already stated that restricting firearms to use within a person's home is infringing upon the rights detailed in the 2nd amendment and they are not conferred but recognized by such.

A law that would restrict gun owners to only keep firearms on their own property would be useless. It would allow any non-prohibited person to own firearms...and if they chose to commit a crime...to walk off their property with their firearms and use them.

A charge of 'leaving your property with a firearm' would be the least of their concerns if they had criminal intent

 

[OpportunityCost]

A law that would restrict gun owners to only keep firearms on their own property would be useless. It would allow any non-prohibited person to own firearms...and if they chose to commit a crime...to walk off their property with their firearms and use them.

A charge of 'leaving your property with a firearm' would be the least of their concerns if they had criminal intent

The point is that restricting the 2nd amendment to your property has already been ruled to infringe on the right. So the 9th is pissing into the wind, like usual.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Come on Glitch, at least pretend you understand what I am saying. "Secondhand smoke is the combination of smoke from the burning end of a cigarette and the smoke breathed out by smokers. Secondhand smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals. Hundreds are toxic and about 70 can cause cancer. Since the 1964 Surgeon General’s Report, 2.5 million adults who were nonsmokers died because they breathed secondhand smoke. There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.

Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke

See the data and statistical information on the health effects of secondhand smoke.

www.cdc.gov

2:26.

 

[Lursa]

The point is that restricting the 2nd amendment to your property has already been ruled to infringe on the right. So the 9th is pissing into the wind, like usual.

Well wasnt it the 9th that also decided that the magazine limits in CA were unconstitutional? (Mag limits in general, I think) That was a good decision.

 

[mrjurrs]

Not when in legal use. Same for knives, cars, etc. Since when you can you hold a manufacturer liable for illegal use of their product?

Bad analogy. Legal use of guns result in injuries and deaths. Why should the manufacturer not be liable? Perhaps you prefer this approach to consumer safety.