Why Isn't The Media Discussing The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity?

[spanone]

As major media outlets report on gun violence prevention strategies in the wake of the Newtown tragedy, they have ignored a controversial law that shields the firearms industry from being held accountable.

In 2005, former President George W. Bush signed into law the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - the "No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association" - which immunized gun makers and dealers from civil lawsuits for the crimes committed with the products they sell, a significant barrier to a comprehensive gun violence prevention strategy. Despite its recent reporting on proposed efforts to prevent another tragedy like the one in Newtown, major newspapers and evening television news have not explained this significant legal immunity, according to a Media Matters search of Nexis.

Faced with an increasing number of successful lawsuits over reckless business practices that funneled guns into the hands of criminals, the 2005 immunity law was a victory for the NRA, which "lobbied lawmakers intensely" to shield gun makers and dealers from personal injury law. As described by Erwin Chemerinsky, a leading constitutional scholar and the Dean of the University of California-Irvine School of Law, by eliminating this route for victims to hold the gun industry accountable in court, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was a complete deviation from basic "principles of products liability":.....more

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12/19/why-isnt-the-media-discussing-the-unprecedented/191910

[librechik]

1. it's just not in the script. You know, like Obama's Gun Panel announcement yesterday

He holds a press conference to announce the new effort to find solutions to gun problems. The press look at him like he's a wax dummy. Then start asking questions about the fiscal cliff. NOTHING but questions about the fiscal cliff. Finally Jake Tapper
says in a very snotty manner, gun deaths have gone up dramatically, many new incidents in the last year or so, where were you? Obama has to sigh and say two wars, financial crisis, health care fight, you know I WASN'T ON VACATION! then leaves the podium.

Fiscal cliff is the script right now. Don't dare to talk about anything else. They want to keep us helpless and without allies as they strip and chain us. And they are willing to pay for it.

The press are nothing but lil paid lapdogs to financial interests and the oligarchy. They aren't the voice of the people and haven't been for a long long time.

[pipoman]

3. Gun deaths have not "gone up dramatically"

in fact, according to BJS, have been in decline for over 3 decades along with violent crime in general. These types of falsehoods do more damage than help the gun control agenda.

[librechik]

9. the press also spreads gross misinformation, making dialogue difficult

that 'more and more violence" is one of their favorite conversation starters. And it's wrong, as you point out.

[pipoman]

2. Should I be allowed to sue Dodge

if a drunk driver hits me while driving a dodge? What about Seagrams if the driver spent the evening prior to hitting me drinking Crown Royal? What about the local Dodge dealer who sold the guy with 3 previous DUI convictions the new truck he hit me with? What about Victor if my neighbor uses Victor rat poison to kill my dog? What about the hardware store who sold the Victor rat poison to my neighbor? No, misuse of legal products may be a crime, not the fault of the producer or seller of the legal product.

[spanone]

7. did congress write a special exemption law just for dodge? don't think so.

[-..__...]

21. Should you (or anyone), be able to sue Dodge if a car owner...

uses/drive the car irresponsibly and kills or injures someone?

Should you also be able to sue the dealership or seller, that sold the car to that person?

Dodge and other automobile manufacturers can and were being sued for safety related product defects.

The firearms manufacturers immunity law did not do away with product liability issues.

[spanone]

40. so why didn't this law apply to dodge? why the gun industry need this ? makes no sesnse.

[DanTex]

51. That's the question none of the NRA apologists will ever answer.

If there's some general principle at work, then it shouldn't be a law specifically protecting the gun industry. The fact is, you can sue Dodge if you get hit by a drunk driver. Except you'll lose.

This is corruption plain and simple. The gun industry didn't want to face certain lawsuits, so it used it's influence with the GOP to get legal immunity.

[ellisonz]

59. Because the NRA is powerful...

...and those children in Connecticut were not.

[spanone]

62. bingo!

[bongbong]

79. Sense

> makes no sesnse.

Do NRA Talking Points (AKA Big Lies) ever make sense?

[ManiacJoe]

87. This question is easy to answer.

No law was passed to protect car manufacturers from these nonsense suits because no one thinks that car manufacturers should be sued for the illegal behavior of their customers.

[DanTex]

8. A jury should decide, rather than the gun lobby.

Why should the gun industry have special protection? You can try and sue dodge if a drunk driver hits you, but you will lose. And if your lawsuit is deemed frivolous, you could end up paying legal costs for the defendants.

[pipoman]

14. Because there is a cost to the state for each

frivolous law suit. Further, the gun lobby didn't decide, your elected officials did..

[DanTex]

18. If the lawsuits are frivolous, the courts can require plaintiffs to cover legal fees.

There is zero justification why the gun industry gets any kind of special protection. I'm pretty sure that if it was the tobacco industry or the asbestos industry or any other industry you would agree.

Yes, the elected officials (in the Republican party) did this, at the behest of the gun lobby. The GOP passes a lot of bad laws. Protecting the gun industry from lawsuits is one of them.

[MicaelS]

73. For the same reason that laws were passed...

Protecting General Aviation. Because lawyers were on the verge of suing light aircraft manufacturers like Cessna and Beech out of business every time some incompetent pilot crashed his plane. They especially targeted the Beech Bonanza Model 35 V-Tail. It was even called "The V-Tail Doctor Killer". The 35 was a high-performance single that the nouvea riche bought because they wanted to buy the fastest thing around, and when the couldn't handle it, they killed themselves, and often their family members. The lawyers wanted to blame the aircraft manufacturers because they had deep pockets, and the lawyers could trade on the sympathy of ignorant jurors. After all, those crashes couldn't be the fault of Doctor X, or Lawyer Y. Except they were.

When it came to guns, lawyers tried to do an end run around the system and specifically the Legislatures. They couldn't get guns banned outright, so they tried to sue the gun companies, wholesalers and retailers out of business. Congress put a stop to that, just as they should have.

[PA Democrat]

38. No. You sue the owner of the vehicle who is required by law to carry insurance.

I think it is reasonable to require gun owners to carry liability insurance as a requirement for gun ownership. Insurance could be based upon the type of gun and its use. Discounts could be given for use of gun safe. Irresponsible gun owners should pay stiff rates.

There are 26 funerals in Newtown. Families should not have to foot the bill. Families should be compensated for their pain and suffering.

[derby378]

61. Only thing is, a Constitutional right is not subject to being underwritten by State Farm

You don't have to carry liability insurance for your blog, newspaper, or TV show. If you slander someone in your media, they have the right to take you to court over it. Rights do come with responsibilities, but not with price tags. That's why they're rights.

[PA Democrat]

80. A number of fees to own guns and to acquire

concealed carry permits have survived constitutional challenges. Call it a fee if the term insurance is objectionable, but there has to be some way to encourage responsible gun ownership.

The preamble of the constitution also states that insuring domestic tranquility and promoting general welfare as goals. Unlimited gun rights IMHO are undermining those goals.

[derby378]

83. Concealed carry permits are one thing...

I have no problem with needing a permit for a concealed weapon. Personally, I don't have one, and I'm not seeking one.

If you redefine the insurance concept as a fee, who would collect it, and under what auspices would those funds be used?

[uponit7771]

48. yes, they make a product and sell it KNOWING that it hurts others then yeap...been done before

[pipoman]

84. Only when the product was

either defective, known dangers were not made available or lied about, or other unexpected consequences arose. The rat poison company knows full well their product will kill humans, as does the liquor companies, the motorcycle companies, the knife companies, hydracloric acid companies...need we go on? When someone misuses a product and this results in harm to someone the misuser is responsible. If this were not the case, many everyday items wouldn't be available or would be too costly to be reasonable.

[hack89]

4. Why don't we actually look at what the law does

The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for crimes committed with their products. However, both 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

In other words, if you get shot by a violent felon, you cannot sue the manufacturer of the gun no more than you could sue Ford if you got run over by a drunk driver.

[Odin2005]

5. Finally, some sense!

IMO keeping the justice system from being clogged by greedy lawsuit trolls taking advantage of emotionally-manipulable juries is a good thing.

[DanTex]

12. Actually, the whole "greedy lawsuit trolls" thing is a right-wing talking point.

What "tort reform" is really about is protecting companies from being held responsible for damages that they and their products cause. It is an attack against consumer safety.

A classic example is the woman who sued McDonalds when she was burned by their coffee. Without knowing the facts, this may sound like some greedy frivolous lawsuit. But in fact, the coffee was 190 degrees, the woman got third-degree burns, and was hospitalized for eight days to undergo skin grafting. The images of the burns are pretty gruesome.

There was a good documentary made about this incident and the right-wing push for tort reform.

http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/

[Odin2005]

57. Go read Hack's post, again.

If a drunk driver kills someone, it would be considered ridiculous for the victim's family to sue the company that made the car. I am not a gun nut, I am for gun control. I am against, however, stupid lawsuits.

And yes, I know all the BS spin about the McDonalds woman, I do not consider that a frivolous lawsuit.

[DanTex]

66. Go read my response to it.

A lot of lawsuits sound ridiculous when you try to summarize them in one sentence (e.g. woman buys coffee, spills on herself, sues McDonald's).

There's no reason why the gun industry needs special protection from lawsuits. Let a judge/jury decide if the lawsuits are frivolous, not the gun lobby.

[spanone]

68. did mcdonalds get special legislation passed that exempts only them from lawsuits? anyone else?

nope just the gun manufacturers.

[loyalsister]

70. A gun is purposely designed to kill people

A car is not. Some designed to kill A LOT of people. It if it is misused.
There is a huge difference between how the two can me misused but how they could be misused to commit crimes. And since cars are only designed to get from one place to another.

At this point, I think that comparison is pretty clear in the minds of the courts.

[Doctor_J]

17. Another Rove/Heritage talking point brought by the gunsters

to stink up DU.

Thank you for making my morning.

[RC]

55. Finally, some sense!

The basic purpose of guns is to kill things. No other legal item, whose basic purpose is to kill, is in such wide spread use.
Trying to distract from the bloody trail of death caused by guns by comparing guns to cars, or anything else, is no more than straw man arguments. None of those other items have as their basic, killing. Only guns have the designation of "Weapons". While other items can be used as weapons, that is not their primary purpose, as is with guns.

There are 7 billion people in the world.
There are 311.6 million people in the united States.
There are 600 million guns in the world.
There are 300 million guns in the United States.
The United States has less that 4.5% of the worlds population.
So why do we have or need one half of the worlds supply of guns?
How can this not be a problem?

[Odin2005]

58. If you read my other posts you would know that I am not a gun nut.

[spanone]

6. okay....

the same type of gun used in the Newtown shooting was used by the 2002 Washington, D.C., snipers to shoot more than a dozen people. But if it had been in effect at the time, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act would have blocked the lawsuit filed by the victims against the gun maker and dealer, and prevented the settlement they received.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12/19/why-isnt-the-media-discussing-the-unprecedented/191910

[hack89]

15. The dealer and the manufacturer were sued because of their business practices

I don't think this law would have stopped the lawsuit if it could have been proven that their negligence contributed to the shooter being able to easily steal the gun he used.

[spanone]

20. if that's true why do they need the law? let's repeal it.

[hack89]

23. Because there were cases

where a criminal shot someone and the manufacturer was sued even though they bore no direct responsibility.

Tell me - if I was hit by a drunk driver, should I be able to sue the car manufacturer?

[spanone]

26. why does the gun industry needs it's own law. if you can't sue the car manufacturer

you can't sue the gun co.

[hack89]

29. Because people weren't suing the car manufacturers

they were suing the gun manufacturers.

Secondly, there are no anti-car groups trying to drive car manufacturers out of business as part of their political agenda.

[spanone]

33. so any manufacturer that gets sued should lobby congress for a special exemption?

[hack89]

37. Gun manufacturers can be sued for things they are directly responsible for

the law says that it black and white.

Why do you want the right to sue them for things they are not responsible for?

[spanone]

39. why do they need a special exemption? car makers don't have one. knife makers don't have one.

[hack89]

41. You are being deliberately obtuse

I have explained it several time now. I am moving on. Bye.

[byeya]

42. You haven't explained diddley; you've just repeated crapola from the gunsucker script.

[spanone]

45. good luck trying to sell that down the road.....

[DanTex]

53. Dodge. Again. Why can't any of the NRA apologists answer the question?

[MicaelS]

78. Yes, if lawyers are trying to sue them out of business.

If it's a legal product, and those wanting to ban something can't do it through the proper channels which is the Legislatures, then yes they should apply to Congress for a special exemption.

[DanTex]

28. Again, I think a jury should decide.

I don't think there should be a special law defending the car industry liability lawsuits either.

If you get hit by a drunk driver, you can sue whoever you want. If you don't have a case, you will lose. If it is deemed frivolous, you will owe for legal costs.

The right to sue is not the same thing as the right to win, or the right to damages. It is just the right to have your case heard by a judge/jury. It's a very basic right.

[hack89]

30. There are no anti-car groups trying to drive Ford and GM out of business

as part of a concerted political agenda.

Anti-gun groups overplayed their hand and got an expected reaction.

[DanTex]

31. LOL. So you are saying that the fact that someone decided to actually invoke the right

to sue for damages means that right should be taken away? You have the right to sue, provided that you don't actually use it. Because if you do, you are "overplaying your hand", and the right gets taken away.

This is corruption, plain and simple. It is an industry using its lobbying clout to protect itself from liability. It's really shocking that anyone would defend this. Do you also want to defend the tobacco or asbestos companies from lawsuits?

Oh, and by the way, I'm sure there are plenty of lawsuits against car manufacturers.

[hack89]

35. If groups deliberately misuse the law

then it should be stopped.

SLAP lawsuits are another good example. Shall we rescind those laws too? Let a jury sort it out.

[DanTex]

49. Every industry that gets sued uses identical talking points.

It's a frivolous lawsuit! It's an abuse of the court system! Blah blah blah. The gun industry is no different.

You know, there's a process to determine whether a lawsuit is frivolous: the legal process. The gun industry had exactly the same rights as any other industry. They were afraid they were going to lose, so they got their influence with the GOP do prevent the courts from deciding.

The word for that is corruption.

The great thing about this discussion is that it makes it obvious that people like you care nothing about "rights". What you care about is guns. You would happily deny the right of people to access the courts simply because it might hurt your pet industry.

[spanone]

32. Supreme Court allows lawsuits against automakers over seat belt design

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0223/Supreme-Court-allows-lawsuits-against-automakers-over-seat-belt-design

[hack89]

34. And gun manufacturers can be sued over dangerous design flaws too

they can't be sued if someone deliberately misuses their product to commit a crime.

It is not complicated.

[daleanime]

44. Was the car built for the purpose

Of running over people?

[hack89]

46. Are guns built to commit crimes? nt

[DanTex]

50. How about we let a jury decide? Why are you so afraid of juries?

Why do you trust the gun lobby and the GOP more than the courts?

[daleanime]

63. I'll answer yours, if you answer mine....

[hack89]

64. Running over people is a crime. So is shooting them.

in both cases the issue is the behavior of the driver/shooter. In both cases the manufacturer of the car/gun has no responsibility for the crime. Both cars and guns are legal products.

[daleanime]

67. Well you are fast and that answer is correct,,,,

it just doesn't answer the question I asked. Would it help you if I restated it?

Is a car designed and build for sole purpose of running over living beings?

[hack89]

69. It is an irrelevant issue when it comes to the law

criminal law punishes people's behavior. Criminal use of a car is no different then the criminal use of a gun. Both guns and cars also have legally recognized uses.

[daleanime]

71. That fact that you are unwilling to answer....

speaks very loudly to me, perhaps you should continue this discussion with yourself until some honesty is reached.

[hack89]

72. Of course guns are designed to kill.

it is still irrelevant to the discussion.

Crime = behavior.

[daleanime]

74. O.K., next question....

Why was it so hard to answer the first question?

This maybe a little tricky, so feel free to take some time to think about. Actually a quick answer will receive a lower grade.

[hack89]

75. I saw it as an attempt to derail the conversation

by introducing an irreverent issue.

[daleanime]

76. No way. It's helped us have a slightly better understanding of each other views...

now I know we won't agree but the insight is worth the effort.

[hack89]

77. ok nt

[DanTex]

10. Why should the gun industry get special protection?

Before this law, gun manufacturers and car manufacturers were on equal footing.

[hack89]

11. If you could put gun manufacturers out of business through a deluge of law suits

would you?

There are no anti-car groups out there attempting to put Ford out of business.

[DanTex]

16. Again, a jury should decide all this, not the gun lobby.

If the gun manufacturers are actually responsible for damages, then they should pay up. If they can't stay in business, that is their problem.

Do you also want to protect asbestos manufacturers from lawsuits to make sure they stay in business?

[hack89]

22. The law allows gun dealers and manufacturers to be sued

for things they are directly responsible for.

Do you think it reasonable that if I was to shoot you with a gun I have had for years that somehow the gun manufacturer bears some responsibility? You would sue either because of their deep pockets or your anti-gun agenda.

[DanTex]

25. How about we let a jury decide?

If the lawsuits are really as frivolous and absurd as you seem to think they are, then the plaintiffs will lose, and will be forced to pay the legal costs for both sides.

Why should gun industry should have special exemptions? The gun industry gets to make it's case in front of a jury, like every other industry.

[ManiacJoe]

88. Why waste the time of the jury and courts?

The courts are already over burdened.

[librechik]

13. nevertheless this law and others the ALEC/NRA juggernaut have sneaked into states

have a chilling effect and add red tape to the process of suing for criminal conduct etc. The burden of proof goes heavily to the plaintiff, and that isn't fair.

All of these tortuously written laws ALEC and the conservatives push are diabolically designed to aid the oligarch and kick ordinary people in the teeth. Unfortunately the really devilish details are invisible to anyone but seasoned lobbyists in the field the law is written for, so foolish legislators all over the country are falling for the sweet sweet conservative memes and missing the noose getting put over their own necks. And they deserve it for their stinginess, and hatred of humanity.

But I don't deserve that, we don't. Don't use the romance of the nostalgia constitution to make wretched the lives of modern living folks.

[hack89]

24. "the nostalgia constitution" is the law of the land

if you don't like it then garner enough support to change it.

But there is no point in complaining about it - you still have to work within the limits it defines.

[Doctor_J]

19. I think Sane America has given up trying to stop the massacres

As the gun nuts point out after every slaughter, they've won, and there isn't anything we can do about it. Meanwhile we've got bigger fish to fry - trying to stop the president from killing the old, the sick, and the Democratic Party by cutting SS & Medicare

[slackmaster]

27. Where were YOU when it was being debated in Congress?

There was plenty of media coverage then. It was very controversial.

[spanone]

36. where was I? okay. so it's my fault this law was implemented cause i wasn't there..i see your logic

[slackmaster]

47. Horse, barn. It's much easier to block something you don't want before it becomes law.

[Dustlawyer]

43. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been on a 30 year Tort Reform binge! The ability

to hold Corporations accountable by a jury is the only thing they fear. Therefore, they have been taking that away from us little by little through statute and court decisions from the stacked Republicon Courts of Appeals! They have been doing things like not settling clear liability cases until they are sued so they can get the number of lawsuits up. But hen they claim we need tO do something about the rise in lawsuits from the evil trial lawyers. Trial attorneys are the ones that help right wrongs and keep us safe from the greedy corps. They are tying our hands and starving us out. They get a two fer b/c trial lawyers are usually big Democratic supporters, so when they have us scratching out a living, we have little money to contribute. Most people don't know of this, or don't believe it but it is true. The Chamber even started its own newspapers that are free right outside of our Jury Assembly room. Search for the Record newspapers. Ours is called the Southeasttexas record. They started out for the 1st year or so without selling ads, but realized they needed to look legit. The slanting is now usually just confined to the Opinions section. Check it out!

[Logical]

52. Is jack Daniels responsible for liver damage?

[DanTex]

54. Why not let a jury decide?

AFAIK, the alcoholic beverage industry does not have blanket immunity. If the court system is good enough for everyone else, why not the gun industry?

[Doctor_J]

56. Right! I remember that rampage where a mall was strafed with Jack Daniels

Jack Daniels tends to kill its users. Smith & Wesson & Glock tend to kill inocents & bystanders. But please, next time a nut kills a bunch of kids using Jack Daniels, post here and I will send in my NRA dues the next day.

Seriously. What...the...fuck

[Logical]

60. So if a guy kills with hatchet you can sue the hatchet company? WTF?

[spanone]

65. name one other industry that has their own special legislation passed for them....

exempting them from liability.

others have to rely on the courts, but not the gun manufacturers

[beevul]

82. Name one other industry that needed it. N/T

[Fumesucker]

85. All of them "need" it

Just ask them, they'd love to have special exemption.

[beevul]

86. I guess I should have defined "needed it".

By "needed it" , I meant:

Name one other industry that special interest groups sought to bankrupt by frivolous lawsuit.

Was MADD trying to bankrupt automakers or brewers/alcohol makers by frivolous lawsuit, when someone drove drunk and killed someone?

Was anyone trying to bankrupt apple or IBM when kiddie porn was found on someones PC of that brand?

Was anyone trying to bankrupt the Diamond match or the bic lighter company whenever someone committed arson using one of those?


Those would be direct parallels, except...nobody is trying to do that.

[ManiacJoe]

89. Need vs want.

Your post just covered it.

[Fumesucker]

90. I remember posting it and you saw it but it's gone for me now..

Is that post there for you?

[ManiacJoe]

91. Still there for me.

85. All of them "need" it
Just ask them, they'd love to have special exemption.

[MicaelS]

92. General Aviation.

Because lawyers were on the verge of suing light aircraft manufacturers like Cessna and Beech out of business every time some incompetent pilot crashed his plane. They especially targeted the Beech Bonanza Model 35 V-Tail. It was even called "The V-Tail Doctor Killer". The 35 was a high-performance single that the nouvea riche bought because they wanted to buy the fastest thing around, and when the couldn't handle it, they killed themselves, and often their family members. The lawyers wanted to blame the aircraft manufacturers because they had deep pockets, and the lawyers could trade on the sympathy of ignorant jurors. After all, those crashes couldn't be the fault of Doctor X, or Lawyer Y. Except they were. That would have killed a bunch of jobs. Congress stepped in and stopped the lawyers. Just like they should have.

General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/s1458

Note when it was passed. Under Bill Clinton.

[Doctor_J]

81. I just sprained my ankle keeping up with your zig-zagging

Last edited Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:37 PM - Edit history (1)

This thread is about special liability for manufacturers of weapons which kill dozens of innocents at a time. You said, "What about Jack Daniels"?, which kills almost exclusively its abusers. When I called out that ridiculous comparison, you said, "What about hatchets". Is there an epidemic of axe murders that the Liberal Media is not telling me about?

Keep it real