My take on the "gun manufacturer" liability argument.

[Jnew28]

If gun manufactures are held liable for gun deaths, then what's stopping this movement from attaching the same rationale to gun and bat producers (considering the associated FBI crime statistics)? It's just another way for the government to generate revenue - costs will be passed onto the consumer, which in essence is another state mandated penalty.

Or, one could use a proximate cause argument: how far down the line is a gun manufacturer liable if the gun is sold to a legal owner, but in the end it end up in the hands of a criminal (whether sold or stolen)? Was that foreseeable? It's just too much of a stretch. Most gun owners are responsible so it's not really a cogent presumption.

Now, it's a "product defect," that's a whole different story.

Clinton is grasping at straws with this one - even her own supporters are bashing her.

http://stupidpartymathvmyth.com/1/post/2015/06/bernard-bernie-sanders-the-political-foresight-champion.html

[Press Virginia]

1. In the case of Sandy Hook, the lawful owner was murdered before the guns

were stolen....surely the manufacturer could no more have reasonably foreseen that event than the state, which approved the sale to the lawful owner, could have.

[Jnew28]

4. Great point.

[tularetom]

2. If it makes you feel any better Clinton won't follow through on it

She's just pandering to what she perceives to be the mindset of liberal New Yorkers because some genius in her campaign told her to.

If some would be Jimmy McGill attempts to file a suit against a gun manufacturer for Sandy Hook, the thing will be laughed out of court. There's no liability there and Clinton knows it, she just thinks she can make a few cheap campaign point off it.

She's flailing.

[draa]

3. +1 for the Jimmy McGill reference.

God I love Better Call Saul. The last few episodes I've been cringing with anticipation of what he would do next. It was almost uncomfortable at times because you knew he was going to screw something up. And I thought most likely it would be that firm that had hired him. Anyway, that show has me hooked.

[Jnew28]

5. I know - that's what I said on Facebook today.

And she's not only looking to New York - it's the assumption that the closed-primaries, where only Democrats partake, are going to be more receptive to anti-gun talking points. However, a plethora of Democrats own weapons and they see this as ridiculous political pandering.

Clinton is dirty - we saw this in '08. She's nothing new.

[Bernin4U]

6. I still see it as sad families and greedy lawyers

And btw they are still trying to sue Remington.

[eridani]

7. The only real liability issue would arise if the manufacturers dealt directly with consumers

In that case, id they didn't do background checks, they'd be liable.