...and the gun manufacturer is culpable for me lending or privately selling my gun to a criminal how?

Because the manufacturer sells a product that kills thousands of people a year and makes no measurable effort to prevent it. They don't care if the weapon gets stolen, lost, loaned out, or melted down for a paper weight. Our justice system doesn't care whether the weapon gets stolen, lost, loaned out, or melted down for a paper weight. In fact, nobody gives a rat's a$$ what happens to the gun if it leaves a registered owner's hands.

But the gun makers just keep making more guns and don't care where they go or how they are used. They continue to flood the market for profit with a complete disregard for public safety.

It's not their responsibility. If they make a product that works well and meets the government standards and is sold to the correct demographic that the government has set forth, the manufacturer bears no responsibility on how the consumer uses the weapon. There aren't gun commercials showing how cool it is to "pop a cap in that M* F*". The gun industry doesn't market their product to children either.

The legislation is the number one legislative goal of the National Rifle Association. It is special interest legislation of the worst type: It denies the rights of innocent victims and protects a powerful, irresponsible industry.

The bill immunizes gun makers and sellers from liability under negligence and other common law principles. "Negligence law is the cornerstone of our civil justice system; it requires people and businesses to use reasonable care to minimize the risk that others will be injured," said Dennis Henigan, Director of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which has filed many of the lawsuits on behalf of victims. "An action can be legal - preventing the imposition of criminal liability - but still be negligent - and warrant civil liability. Under current law, a gun dealer may be liable for shootings using negligently sold guns. Under S. 659, these dealers would be immunized from liability, despite their negligent conduct."

The bill also would protect gun makers who refuse to make their products safer. Guns are already the only consumer product (other than tobacco) exempt from federal safety oversight, so the federal government cannot recall unsafe firearms, or require the implementation of life-saving safety devices in guns. By eliminating liability in virtually all design defect cases, this bill would eliminate any incentive for the gun industry to design guns responsibly.

http://www.bradycampaign.com/press/release....asp?Record=498

I see no reason why irresponsible gun dealers should be given immunity from civil liability. Yes, it's the fault of the criminal when a gun is used for illegal purposes, however if a reckless dealer puts the weapon in the criminal's hand they share in the responsibility for making the illegal act possible. Please tell me why this dealer should be immune from liability?

Badger Outdoors Inc., West Milwaukee, WI. From 1989 through 1996, this dealer sold 554 guns traced to crime; 475 of those guns had a "short time to crime" as defined by ATF. The guns were involved in at least 27 homicides, 101 assaults, 9 robberies, and 417 additional gun crimes. The dealer also sold at least 1563 handguns in multiple sales. From 1994 to 1996, straw purchaser Lawrence Shikes bought 10 guns from Badger. In one case, he immediately sold the gun to an undercover federal agent who told Shikes he was a felon. Several weapons Shikes purchased have been recovered from a killer, a rapist (Marcus D. Hawkins - a convicted armed robber who raped a 22-year-old woman at gunpoint with her 17-month-old son nearby), a man who shot at a police officer (Charles Jennings), and three juvenile shooting suspects (including Roosevelt Poveda - a drug felon and a member of the Gangsta Disciples who was arrested as an accomplice to the murder of Stevie Blunt in 1996; one of Shikes' guns was later found in his home). Robert Mallette Jr. (a member of the Brothers of the Struggle gang in Chicago) and Edgar Richmond were arrested for straw purchases conducted at Badger. One of their guns was found by the body of their uncle Charles Holley (who had a drug history) when he was murdered by a rival gang member in March 1998.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/related...603/10worst.asp

If the DEALER sells the gun improperly he should be held accountable. If they don't follow the procedures laid down by the government and sell a gun to a felon and the felon uses the gun or doesn't but get's caught with it, the DEALER should face charges. BUT NOT THE MANUFACTURER.

By that logic Billy Jean, Ford could have continued making Pintos with faulty gas tanks that blew up in crashes and incinerated the passengers. The feds allowed the Pinto to be produced until Ralph Nader blew the whistle on those four-wheeled napalm bombs.

According to Handgun Control, the feds don't enforce any standards in the manufacture of guns.

thanks to the power of the gun lobby, the gun industry also manufactures and markets the only widely available product for which there are no consumer product safety standards. In fact, when the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) was created by Congress in 1972 to protect the public against unreasonable risk of injury associated with consumer products, guns were specifically exempted from the CPSC's jurisdiction. The CPSC monitors safety standards for all manner of consumer goods -- from clothing to toys to lawn mowers -- but not guns.

Nor does this responsibility belong to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). The ATF has jurisdiction over the commerce of guns, such as licensing of dealers, standards for purchasers, and regulating sales and transfers, but it does not and cannot set manufacturing safety standards for firearms.

As a result, there are more safety standards governing the manufacture of a toy gun or for a teddy bear than there are for a real gun. The only standards a gun manufacturer has to comply with are ones the manufacturer sets for itself. And unfortunately, there are far too many gun makers who don't care if their products are poorly made, lack basic safety features, or pose an unreasonable risk to the public. The industry does not care because it doesn't have to: there are no laws which require it to make sure its products are not unnecessarily dangerous.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issuebr...iefs/reform.asp

The responsibility to manufacture a "safe" gun belongs to the manufacturers. However, it seems they are much more interested in pushing through "special interest" legislation to cover their butts rather than produce weapons that kids can't get ahold of and shoot themselves.

I believe a law-abiding citizen has a right to a gun but also the responsiblity to learn how to use it correctly and effectively. Why exclude the gun makers from the responsibilty to build better guns?

The chance of a gun that is well maintained blowing up in the consumers face is slim. Guns are designed and tested thoroughly to insure that the product is safe and reliable. WHAT similarity are you trying to draw between the discussion of the responsibility of gun owners vs. manufacturers and the Pinto? This isn't about whether or not guns are MADE safely, rathe are they HANDLED properly and who's held accountable when an IRRESPONSIBLE CONSUMER misuses a gun.

I have stated early in this thread the steps the gun manufacturers have taken towards gun safety.

I chose the "case by case" option. Obviously, we don't want to bar peoples' right to litigate - it is, whether we always like it or not, a part of the checks and balances of the civil market.

I share DR's sentiments as far as guns go - they really are designed as a weapon, not as a tool. However, if their intended use is to inflict death, then perhaps there is no case to be made - because they were not being misused. While the fact that handguns are designed to be weapons leads me to believe their ownership and use should be heavily regulated and restricted, I do not think the manufacturers are liable in this sort of lawsuit. Colt wasn't putting out ads saying "guns won't hurt you - they are good for you!" This wasn't like the tobacco case (which, while it got out of hand, had a semi-solid basis).

Most handguns are designed to kill humans. How could I then sue Colt because someone killed a human with their product? That would be like suing a swimming pool maker because I filled it with water and swam in it!

I do see major hypocricy here however. The government is busting a lot of bong manufacturers these days. How is that different than guns? The argument is really the same. People doing something illegal with the product is not the liability of the maker. Since murder is supposedly a worse crime than smoking weed, wouldn't you think the government would be raiding gun factories as well as bong factories? Just a thought...



And finally, do you think any of the following people did or would have owned a handgun:
Jesus Christ
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Mohandas K. Gandhi
Gautama Siddhartha, the Buddha
The Dalai Lama

I don't think I will be needing one, either.

You've made a very good point there. of course, I am one of the biggest supporter of the legalization of Pot on the board, and quite proud of it.

You're right, Jesus probably wouldn't have carried a gun, but he sure went to hell on the coin changers and venders in the temple with a whip!

Wow, this debate really took off since I last was here. I partially agree with DR, its just some of the language being used in the discussion that makes the whole debate seem wishy-washy. I too think that the gun manufactuers should be more involved in gun safety and concerned about how they are sold and who is buying them. Espeacially when so many guns are stolen and sold each year. Just like any product, the manufactuerer should be taking pro-active measures for quality control of just not how the product operates but also how they are being used. Like I keep saying, there will need to be a change in attitude toward firearms in this country. Not just in some parts, but the entire country. So I agree with DR that it will require gun manufactuers' support to help facilitate a solution. This does not mean that gun manufactuers are guilty, its just implying that gun manufactuers should be more involved in helping to keep our communities safe from the products that they produce.

Okay, people of the anti-gun persuasion keep saying this but fail to give any examples or suggestions. I on the other hand, just a couple of posts up, have listed what measures the gun manufacturers have taken, yet anti-gun thinkers FAIL to respond to this. They ignore and continue on their rant with nothing backing up there notion of stricter gun safety measures!



Like what? "Guns aren't toys." "Guns are dangerous." "Guns don't belong in the hands of children." "Keep your gun locked and out of the reach of children." All these things are already reinforced.

WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT!?

I think that if a toy were designed to kill it would probably fail the CPSC's 'unreasonable risk of injury' guideline. The bullets would probably also have to include a warning 'for ages three and up', to avoid a chocking hazard. The association of regulations for weaponry with household products and toys is lost to me. I don't imagine that any steak knife suited to its purpose would pass the CPSC requirements either.

If not what I just said, what was your point here?

And knives and chains and tazers and fists and brass knuckles, ect. It makes no sense to hold the manufacturer of any product responsible for what some looney does with his product, otherwise it'd be unfair and punishing innocents.

CP

Since as Jamie said, the core issue of lawsuits targeting gunmakers is pretty much dead, what of the core principle of an industry being held responsible for the misuse of a legally manufactured, properly functioning and performing product? Can such suits find legitimacy applied elsewhere?

If, as Dayton Rocker argues, there is merit in the principle of holding corporations to a subjective standard of civic duty and special circumstances of culpability arise when the industry does not actively try to positively affect the misuse of its product after manufacture and end user sale, then I offer what I feel is a more legitimate target for such legal action. The outcome of these suits would save far more lives that the gun suits ever could and the potential monetary payday for the federal, state and municipal governments could nearly end all their deficits.

My target would be the global petrochemical industry. The refiners, wholesalers and retailers are all liable for their undeniable relationship with the various international cocaine cartels though their purchace of millions of gallons of specialty chemicals to produce their product.

Production of cocaine is a three-step process: from raw coca leaves to coca paste, from coca paste to cocaine base, and then finally from cocaine base to finished cocaine HCl. During each of these production steps, drug traffickers use a significant quantity of chemicals. One kilo (2.2 lbs) of cocaine base requires the use of three liters of concentrated sulfuric acid, 10 kilos of lime, 60 to 80 liters of kerosene, 6 to 10 liters of acetone, ether or methyl ethyl ketone, 200 grams of potassium permanganate and one liter of concentrated ammonia.

The National Agrarian University in Lima, Peru, for example, corroborated claims that as much as 600 million liters of so-called precursor chemicals are used annually in South America for cocaine production. This translates to more than two metric tons of chemicals used (and then dumped) for each hectare of coca processed to produce cocaine. According to press reports and scientific surveys, coca cultivators throughout Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia also use large quantities of toxic pesticides to help clear new lands and to control weeds and other pests in their plots.

The chemicals are produced legally around the world and are being used as designed; to break down organic substances, to refine, to evaporate etc. but of course for an illegitimate, illegal end.

So, is Dayton Rocker's principle transferable to SHELL, DuPont, Brunner Mond, CONOCO, ELF or Occidental Petroleum et al, or is it just an anti-gun thing?

OK, do these manufacturers specifically say that their guns are to be used to kill innocent people? Of course not.

I have never seen a gun ad that says their gun offers superior performance in the innocent-and-good-people killing department.

They offer their guns for hunting and protection.

Anyone who uses their firearms for anything but that is using it in violation of the manufacturer's recommended application.

It doesn't get any simpler than that. pursuing the manufacturer of a product for the actions of that manufacturer's customers is a ridiculous idea.

If that were the case, every auto manufacturer should be sued for every drunk driving death because the driver of one of the vehicles they manufactured used their vehicle as a weapon. Boeing should be sued on behalf of September 11th victims because the hijackers used airplanes they manufactured in violation of the manufacturer's recommendation. The government should be sued for every auto accident in which a driver is found at fault. After all, they create the transportation system, and they maintain it. They deserve it, since one of their customers (a taxpayer) used their product (a road) outside of their recommendations. And the government should be sued any time some commits suicide by jumping off a bridge. Same logic.

Mike

I strongly believe that each individual holds a responsibility for his/her own actions and the results of them.

It appears however, that we are no longer capeable of this responsibility judging by the flood of litigation against the tobacco companies etc.
There is absolutly no point in any manufacturer issuing warnings as to how his product is not to be used as this becomes an admission that it could be so used.
Like the tobacco companies, the arms manufacturers are well aware how their product is being used and, like the tobacco companies, are keeping their mouths shut.

There is an additional complication here.
If litigation goes ahead regarding victims of gunshots, how do the armed forces stand?.
Do the floodgates open with families of the war dead suing manfacturers?...........
Just a thought

Regards.........Alan

Don't tell that to the city of Chicago. They have a complete ban on handguns in the city. Right now, they lead the nation in murders, and while I won't pretend to tell you that none of them are by handgun, I'll wager that there are more by knife/baseball bat/tire iron, or whatever than by handgun.

How is it the gun manufacturer's negligence that my gun gets stolen, or that I loan it out to you and you kill somebody with it. My negligence, maybe, but not the gun makers.

And there are consequences for those actions. If I loan or give you a gun, and you use it to kill sombody else, trust me, as soon as the victim's lawyer finds out about it, I'm the one that's gonna get sued.

You cannot sue the manufacturer because they failed to see far enough into the future to know that I was gonna be an idiot with their product. That's not negligence.

Hi NiteGuy, first some moderation stuff - please don't double post. If you were the last person to post and want to add more, please go in & edit you last post. (If it's been 12 hours, & no one has since posted you can make a new post because your edit window closes)

Now let's debate

I saw that you stated:

I had a hunch you were wrong*. So I looked it up. You are.

Here are the City of Chicago 2003 (Jan-May) homicide statistics: Link (PDF - sorry). If you can't open it, I'll cite the important part: -Yes, they actually said "shot."

So much for making guns illegal. I honestly wonder who convinced Mayor Daley that trying to sue the manufacturers as an additional step in curbing gun violence was the answer.

What I found compelling about the Chicago Homicide Report is that 41% of murders were gang related. It seems like the gangs using the guns are a major part of the problem, not the guns themselves (and I'm sure we could create a whole new topic to debate that alone).

Based on at the prior offender rates in that report, my guess is that most of those murderers who killed by gun did NOT obtain their gun from a reputable dealer that adhered to the manufacturers' sales recommendations. A prior felon is well aware s/he is not to be in possession of a firearm and therefore, when doing so, is going against the recommendations of the manufacturer. How in the world can a manufacturer be responsible for a prior felon committing murder with a gun?



*I used to live near Chicago and in little ways, can't let go -

I had to comment on this one. There's a significant difference between somebody using the Pinto to mow down a line of school children and the Pino having a defect present from the time of manufacture. If a 9 mm blows up in a person's hand because of a manufacturing error, sue away. If somebody chooses to murder somebody with that 9 mm, however, they have no more place to sue the gun manufacture than the surviving family of those children do to sue Ford for the actions of the driver in question.


There are "ZERO consequences" for the gun manufacturer and rightly so. They had nothing to do with the chosen actions of those persons committing illegal actions. There are, however, consequences for those participants directly engaged in the illegal action. Essentially the same situation as above only somebody stole the little Pinto.

By flooding the market. By ignoring the public safety concerns and making as much hardware as they can get paid for. Face it - regardless of who has a gun, isn't 300,000,000 in the United States enough? I think not...they're still pouring them out as fast as ever.

They have a right to make a profit just like everybody else, but they are doing it at the expense of lives. Someone is not ordering a gun to protect their households. They are going to a store where they are on the shelf being displayed.

A percentage of those guns end up where they shouldn't be via theft, loss, whatever. And therein lies the problem. 99.8% of the guns available are not used in crime. But .2% of 300,000,000 is 6,000,0000. Six freaking million crimes committed with guns. So, what do the manufacturers do? Help affect change, educate, develop new technologies to increase gun safety? No. They make more!

Everything around us can be misused. That can't be disputed. But using a device who's sole intent is to kill someone flies in the face of public safety. And the gun manufacturers aren't doing anything to help. Lawsuits would be a method of getting them on board and actually PLACING guns into responsible hands instead of the hands that contain cash.

DaytonRocker


Dead wrong. Flooding the market with any legal product does not make the manufacturer responsible for ANY crime.

If the gun manufacturers aren't conducting research and development into SmartGun technology, then please tell us who is.

Heck, why go through all that trouble? Why not stick a cork in the end of the barrel with a little red flag hanging off it that says "BANG!"?

Because that's the same affect anything they've been doing or are doing is having. It's conceivable that if guns were HARDER to come buy, people would be more careful with what they have. Meaning, they might be more protective of their guns because they don't want to be without protection. But the more guns that are in circulation, a higher number of incidents of misuse will occur. Simple math. Less guns, less incidents. More lives saved.

But why should the gun makers care? It's not hurting them.

Reminiscient of Rancid Uncle with the Cool Whip, and ripped straight from the headlines, why don't we also sue McDonalds and other food manufacturers for continuing to produce food for obese children to eat. As long as the demand is there, they'll keep producing. That still in no way makes them liable for the actions of their consumers.

DaytonRocker - you have provided to no support to show that manufacturers are a ) flooding the market with guns* OR b ) marketing specifically to those they shouldn't (ie those that legally can't own guns - minors, known criminals, etc.)

If you could provide such support, I'd be right by your side in this. If you could show me internal memos, Board of Directors meeting transcripts, company notes, whatever - anything indicating these manufacturers KNOWINGLY marketed to groups for whom it was illegal to own a gun, then I'd say sue them.

But as we know with the largely failed effort of the existing lawsuits, no smoking gun exists. Without that, we have reasonable doubt.




*and I would say so what if they do? What's wrong with a company selling their legal product?

I'll look into some numbers tommorrow. It's a combination of production and imports.

In the meantime, here's some light reading:
http://www.gunlawsuits.org/reform/distribution.asp

It sounds like the gist of your argument requires the gun manufacturers to stop manufacturing guns.

1. I want strict certifications for every vendor selling new firearms of every gun manufacturer they want to supply their store with. If you want to be a vendor for Smith & Wesson you have to be certified under their standards as though you were their representative. Microsoft does this with retail stores so that their employees know how to market their software better and provide solutions to troubleshooting questions. Only I demand that firearm certification be strictly enforced for every gun store clerk with every manufacturer they want to be a vendor for.
2. I want to require every new gun sold from a certified vendor to have a title showing the firearm’s serial number, model number, description, and date it was made. The title will be printed on official watermark paper with the seal of the State it was purchased in and the letterhead of which vendor it was purchased from. The title shall be marked by some means of approval showing that the customer has passed a criminal background check and dated. The title shall be signed and dated by the customer and the clerk along with the customer’s State ID number and the clerks certificate number for the firearm being purchased. The original title will belong to the owner of the firearm, a copy will stay with the vendor, a copy will go to a State agency and the manufacturer will hold a copy.
3. When ever the owner of the gun chooses to sale their firearm the title must be transferred to the new owner much like a car title. On the back of the title there will be two signatures and dates from the current owner and the purchaser. A set of signatures will be on a perforated portion of the title which is separated and mailed in with in a time limit of two weeks by the previous owner to the State agency currently holding a copy of that title. The rest of the title goes with the new owner and the new owner has two weeks to present that document to the proper State agency (maybe the DMV) that the new owner is a resident of to be issued a new title for the firearm. The new title will strictly be a government document with no letterhead of the original vendor. The original vendor will not receive a copy of the transferred title and neither will the manufacturer. Instead the title will be shared through a federal bureaucracy forever monitoring the transaction of the firearm for the rest of its existence. If 3 weeks goes by and the previous owner does not receive a letter stating that the title of the firearm has been transferred then the previous owner should file a report immediately.
4. Certified vendors of the firearm’s manufacturer will be allowed to service and repair that particular firearm. A report will be submitted to the manufacturer by the certified vendor showing all services and repairs regarding the firearm and the firearm’s serial number and model number—nothing more. Any modifications done to the firearm that the manufacturer is aware of will be flagged in their database. Any State that recognizes this modification from the manufacturers kept records may require the current owner to possess a proper license allowing the modifications.

I could think of more but please forgive me; I’m in no mood to write an entire bill over night for a simple debate forum. These are just some ideas I had in mind that were quickly hashed out. The basic thing is the manufacturers keep track of the guns they produce and the States keep track of who owns them. I only see tracking as a federal issue once when firearms have a title transferred so many times or once they start crossing State lines to different owners. At which any time a firearm is registered as missing or stolen it is flagged as an illegal weapon. Now even though it would be difficult to track down one missing firearm, if there were 170,000 firearms with similar track records then criminology would be able to study which way these illegal guns are being trafficked. Some may think my suggestions are a bit intrusive and that’s fine. But I don’t think it is nearly as intrusive as *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** testing grocery-baggers who are making minimum wage.

Lorax, as a Republican, I am a little uncomfortable with what you are suggesting, but I like that you are not advocating bans on guns.

However, the majority of guns used in crimes are not bought in stores, the legal way, but off the streets, where gun laws do nothing.

And for every "tamper proof" innovation, there is a way around it. A tracking system sophisticated enough to track that many guns seems unfeasible and costly. Especially given that most people seem to favor putting the sights on criminals instead of their weapons.

Do you really think voters would go for such a huge gun control program when they don't blame the weapon or think gun control even deals with the real problem?

I live in a very conservative state with quite a few military bases. That kinda narrows it down don't it? Of course I would never dream of placing a ban on guns. And what I propossed in no way limits or restricts you from buying a gun, unless of course you are a felon. I agree, there is quite a bit of bureaucracy involved, but it is not all government. Notice that I want the vendors and the manufacturers to be more responsible in selling firearms. I agree that no method is tamper proof, but once when the auditor comes around with a gun linked to a homicide and the paperwork comes to a shady halt, then there are going to be some severe penalties to dish out. The paperwork is not that complex, and with computer databases information is rather easy to organize. Still, paper stays put. How many new guns do you think a gun store sells in a year? 3 million? a couple hundred? Either way, they should be able to keep track of their inventory and the title is an exellent document to show a legitmate purchase of a firearm. The certification is good for building a trust between manufacturer and vendor. And the State is just the slow moving dinosaur pushing paper, but it can be done. It would also be hard to forge a document unless if you can make that document match the vendor's copy, the manufacturer's copy or any previous owner's title transfer. I'm also trying to keep it from the federal level as much as possible allowing States more jurisdiction, but under certain circumstances, the feds just need to know.

The main part here is that I'm not trying to blame anybody. I'm just trying to say that we need to change our attitudes about firearms. We all know that they are not toys, we all know that they are dangerous. We know that they are one of the hottest things to have stolen from us. We all know that every owner of a firearm is suppose to be a responsible individual with that gun and should keep it safe and out of way from doing anybody harm. But what I scence is so much pride and prejudice of individualist behavior using a firearm as a crutch to uphold their rights and feel secure instead of making an initiative to be an example of someone who is willing to take those extra steps to assure that they don't let guns fall into the wrong hands. And if they do fall into the wrong hands you better have a way to legally show that you have absolved yourself from that firearm. There is a solution to controlling firearms but it is not going to happen over night. And it is going to take more than just the government to keep tabs.

loraX, it's too early in the morning for me to write a proper response, but I just wanted to say are the ONLY gun opponent to come up with constructive, somewhat realistic solutions and ideas to the issue at hand. If I agree or not isn't the issue at the moment, but thankyou for your genuine effort.

EDITED TO ADD:



I can see how this would be good, it would exhonerate the manufacturer even further from responsibility, if the reltail operator broke the law by selling a fire arm to a felon or unqualified consumer.
The manufacturer could then say, "Look, they were certified and supposedly followed the guidelines setforth by our company".


That's a good idea too, but what about guns already on the market?



That's a good idea also.


This I don't agree with. You don't have to report changes to your car to the DMV and you can take your car to any mechanic. This particular proposal is unrealistic.

OK, folks - we're getting WAY off-topic. This is NOT a 2nd amendment debate.

We are to debate if gun manufacturers should or should not be held liable for crimes committed with their products.

Stay on topic, this has been a great debate so far.

Nighttimer wrote on Jul 28 2003, 02:57 PM



Presenting anything from the Brady Campaign as fact is foolish. When reading anything from them the only thing you can be assured of is that the truth is either cleverly danced around or, in most cases, nowhere to be found.

The purpose of S.659 is, "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." (emphasis added)

Those are the only legal actions prohibited. Expressly exempted from 659's prohibition are cases arising from:

(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.

Since he is not exempt and nothing in S.659 gives him immunity, and you stipulate that illegal actions are the fault of that individual alone, do you now abandon the Brady position and support the enactment of S. 659?

Regarding the case study you provide, most of those infractions occurred during the Clinton - Reno years and span both sides of the Brady Law with its enhancements. That was the sorriest period for enforcing and prosecuting gun crime this nation has ever seen. Those criminals who could applied for FFLs and began doing a banner business under the unblinking eyes of the BATF and USDoJ.

Also, regarding the discourse in this debate, I must say that I am distressed that so many here either have no comprehension of the duties of the BATF or want the civil courts to have jurisdiction over criminal acts. Much of those who are arguing pro-lawsuits are using criminal misdeeds by dealers (domain of ATF) as basis of civil action on manufacturers. I do not see any tangible connection. 99.9% of guns shipped to retail dealers are ordered from distributors with the makes and models chosen dependent upon the market forces coming through the dealer's door. The argument that manufacturers "dump" guns on retail dealers is ludicrous.


*Title 18 , Part I , Chapter 44 , Sec. 924(h)

Whoever knowingly transfers a firearm, knowing that such firearm will be used to commit a crime of violence (as defined in subsection ( c )(3)) or drug trafficking crime (as defined in subsection ( c )(2)) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both.

300,000,000 guns in circulation. And the gun makers are producing a new gun every 8 seconds so it will go to nobody in particular. This is a complete disregard for public safety for the sake of profit.

http://www.kqed.org/w/baywindow/guns/stats.html

edited to add:


That is preposterous. Granted, you may not like what they have to say, but that is a ridiculous statement. I would have as much luck making a point by stating the same of the NRA.

You added a decent point to the debate up to that point, then your credibility tanked.

You can say the same thing for cutlery industry. And MANY more people have been killed throughout history by the blade in comparison to the gun.

We can't keep having a circular argument here. Please read my other posts surrounding the knife/tire iron/bat comparisons.

Stabbings are not at epidemic levels and knives are designed for something other then harming people.

Ever stand in line at a McDonalds? They make their hamburgers and fries continuously for nobody in particular. Obesity has been labeled an epidemic, unlike your contention with bats, knives and tire irons. Nobody has to buy those hamburgers and fries anymore than anybody has to buy those guns. Even after such purchase nobody has to eat that food anymore than they have to illegally use that firearm.

Whatever issues you may have with gun violence, gun manufacturers are in no way responsible for how the gun is used after it leaves the assembly line. They aren't going to hold your hand and supervise you on the street anymore than Ronald McDonald is send a bite of burger swooping in on the end of a spoon like it's an airplane.

It's not their job to oversee how the gun is used.

Right. Back that up. And by the way, rifles were and still are widely used to HUNT GAME. So your argument that the design has something to do with it is flawed.

Now, if you want to discuss assult rifles and things of that nature, you have a leg to stand on. But you can't lump all fire arms into one catagory.

Perhaps we should make the manufacturers of large knives with blood grooves liable as well. Not much other function to that type of knife.

BJ, try and keep on topic...


As much as I am in general agreement with Daytonrocker about the gun issue on a general level, I must disagree in the context of this thread.

First of all, people are NOT misusing a gun when they kill someone with it.

Secondly, this is unlike the tobacco industry - the gun companies have not spent years falsifying data and presenting guns in a false light; they have never held the position that guns are healthy and safe.

On the other hand, it is important that consumers have and keep the right to instigate litigation. I believe that this is a case people will not win, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to sue at all.

It should be taken on a case by case basis. Gun manufacturers could be held liable for defective products, but not for people doing with the product exactly what it was created for. I can't sue Prell because I used it to clean my hair - after all, that is what the stuff is for!

Guns don't kill people. people kill people. Guns are manufactured for hunting, personal defense, and war(defending a nation) They aren't made for illegal use, but the gun companys make them so they can be used for the correct reasons. we cant take away the right to bear arms.

Please note - this is NOT a gun control/2nd amendment rights debate. We are debating the specific idea of suing manufacturers for the customer's misuse of their product.

Handguns are primarily used for self defense. Death by shooting, while always tragic, is no more prevalent than death by some more preventable causes.Deaths by Firearm Rank Low in U.S.


Most gun deaths are committed by guns which have not been bought legally. I can't see how gun manufacturers can be held responsible for this. It is like suing Toyata because the Camry is stolen so often. Don't blame the criminal, blame the manufacturer.

As long as guns are legal, the manufacturers should not be punished for producing a legal products (as long as it has no manufacturing defects).

Dayton Rocker wrote:



Oh boy, I added a decent point, thanks. It was directed at your argument; you feel no need to rebut?

Just saying my credibility tanked is not proving so.

If I am wrong then what explanation exists for the deceit in the quoted text from Brady Campaign?

Legal actions not prohibited by S.569;

"an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se; . . . an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product; or an action for physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended."

The entire Brady analysis of S. 659 is wrong and is intended to deceive the reader and sway opinon against the Bill. That is indefensible; you are however welcome to try.



Brady is a highly questionable source and justifiably so. The Onion.com has more truthful articles. Give me three links to their website where they are offering explanations or analysis and I will find many mistakes and outright attempts to defraud, discredit and deceive.

It is a rare day when I or any pro-gun rights person worth his salt would offer the NRA as citable source. Only when the NRA is the topic of discussion, say regarding law enforcement training, would I link to them. If a position can not be substantiated outside partisan, friendly sites, its not worthy of attention. This especially goes for the Brady Campaign / VPC.

Edited to add . . .



If that is what NPR is and that's what my tax dollars are going to support, then I think I'm joining the Freemen.

Go to the homepage, find the poll question at the bottom, "Is preemptive war a legitimate means of American national defense?"

Click YES, its like being in an evil loop, "submit yourself for re-education"

how can gun manufacturers be sued for one of their weapons killing someone? if a hockey player is killed by the puck because it hits his/her head, do you sue the hockey puck company? There is no reason to sue gun companies as long as they are selling they're guns legally. last time i checked, selling a gun was not illegal.

Those people make a choice to use a product that affects their lives. Not mine.

People who get shot usually have no choice in the situation.

thats all very nice, and u do make a point, but it does nothing for the topic at hand. the question is whether or not the manufacturers are liable for people who die at the hand of their guns.

Wow... and the gun manufacturer had how much more choice in the matter? Zero. The gun manufacturer had no more a say in one person shooting another than the person being shot did. They are no more liable than a person who happened to become a target.

I've read HR. S.569and have no idea how you can come up with any other conclusion then what bradycampaign.com did.

If you're basing it on:


Then, I can see why. You are conveniently leaving out "per se". This qualifer, meaning "taken alone", does not turn this statement into some type of blanket statement as you suggest. With your interpretation, the bill is completely bogus because of what it says almost from the start:



That appears to be pretty unambiguous to me. You're slamming the entire credibilty of the Brady Campaign in one fell swoop based on your interpretation which to me, appears wrong. The gun makers have an entire defensive line called Congress lined up in front of them so that Congress can get THIS to slide through:



Hey, if you can't get SCOTUS to rule on it, why not go knocking on the back door?

This bill is a sham beyond beleif. Thanks for pointing it out to me.

Dayton Rocker wrote;


Where have I not included "per se?" That would be illogical and defeat the definition and corrupt the passage. See, "per se" is not some sort of grammatical modifier here, it's not negligence, (per se); it is negligence per se. It is a formal legal doctrine where certain acts are considered proof of negligence without any requirement to prove the actor's intent or knowledge. The negligence is accepted legally as inherent in the action.

So, just to sum up the real sham here, Brady Campaign's analysis of S. 659, Brady argues that S. 659, "immunizes gun makers and sellers from liability under negligence and other common law principles. . . Under current law, a gun dealer may be liable for shootings using negligently sold guns. Under S. 659, these dealers would be immunized from liability, despite their negligent conduct. . ."

That statement is false. S. 659 expressly excludes from its protections, actions brought by a party directly harmed by the conduct of a transferee convicted of transferring a firearm used to commit a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime. Also excluded from S. 569 are actions brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se. Instead of being immune from S. 659, manufacturers, distributors or dealers are liable for knowingly and willfully violating a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the gun if that violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought.

Finally, Brady Campaign's statement that . . .

"The bill also would protect gun makers who refuse to make their products safer. . . By eliminating liability in virtually all design defect cases, this bill would eliminate any incentive for the gun industry to design guns responsibly.

is also a blatant lie. Actions arising from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended, are also excluded from S. 659's effect.

I really don't know what else to write regarding this, as I said, Brady's deceit is indefensible. You gave it a shot but you failed.



The Brady Campaign and all its former manifestations are based on deceit. I've been a student of liberty, the Constitution, our laws and our crime problem for a long time and Handgun Control Inc. / Brady Campaign / VPC have been consistently wrong discussing those topics. As far as my interpretation goes, please refer to a legal dictionary / glossary, it would help if we are both speaking the same language.



Our founding principles, the history of this nation, the words of the founders and the Constitution are quite clear on that subject. They are all in agreement about a basic tenet. Our rights do not flow from the legislative acts of man. For you to take the Senate re-affirming the citizen's RKBA as a backdoor way of establishing, granting, giving or otherwise conferring the right to arms upon the citizens and such an act is worthy of contempt, only demonstrates how lost you are.