Appeals court tosses cities, counties lawsuit againt gun makers (CA)

[slackmaster]

In re
FIREARM CASES.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
ARCADIA MACHINE & TOOL, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
*

A103211, A105309
(Los Angeles Superior Court
No. BC210894; Judicial Council
Coordination Proceeding No. 4095)

A number of California cities and counties filed an action on behalf of the general
public against manufacturers, distributors and retailers of handguns and their trade
associations, asserting that their conduct of distributing firearms in a manner that enables
criminals to acquire the firearms constituted a public nuisance and a pattern of unlawful,
unfair and deceptive business acts and practices in violation of the unfair competition law
(UCL), Business and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500.1 On March 7, 2003,
the superior court considered several separate dispositive motions. It granted judgment
on the omnibus motion for summary judgment brought by various gun manufacturers,
distributors and trade associations.2 Plaintiffs appealed. We affirm because of plaintiffs’
failure to establish a causal connection between the alleged unfair practices and the harm,
as we explain below....

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A103211.PDF

[Postmanx]

1. I really hope

These stupid nuisance suits are soon a thing of the past.

[Mayday999]

2. I agree with you 100% Stupid lawsuits!

Following the rationale that these people have; the car manufacturers should be sued because they "knowingly" sell vehicles to people who may use alcohol and drive over the speed-limit. Car manufacturers should run background checks to make sure the people buying vehicles have NEVER had any DUI's or driven over the speed limit. The manufacturers also remain responsible for doing this during the ENTIRE life of the vehicle. If some used car salesman sells a 10-year old vehicle to a drunk driver; then the manufacturer is responsible for ANY death or damage that driver causes.

This parallels the thought process of these suits. Truly sleazy.

[jody]

3. Why stop with cars, ban alcohol because there is a non zero probability

someone might take a few drinks and then kill someone.

And don't forget the fat-rich, fast food industry that has contributed to our obese nation. And while we are at it, we should sue potato farmers because their product goes in to super size fries and the tomato farmers because their product goes into ketchup that makes fries taste so good.

[iverglas]

4. funny thing

There's that curious intervening step between buying a car and driving it.

You remember. It's called A DRIVER'S LICENCE.

Car manufacturers are pretty entitled to rely on the public authorities that look after the whole deal of who gets to drive a car and who doesn't, I'd say. The state can really perform that function quite a bit better than car manufacturers. And damned if it doesn't do just that.

So the whole problem these gun manufacturers are having would be pretty much solved if the people they sold firearms to (or to whom their distributors sold firearms) had to be licensed in order to use said firearms.

(And of course, since the relevant distinction is that cars can't be upgraded to invisible by their owners installing cloaking devices but firearms can be upgraded to invisible by their owners wearing clothing, the licence would be required for individuals possessing firearms.)

So are you hearing many of these gun manufacturers proposing this simple solution to their problem? Many of the people shedding tears for the poor gun manufacturers advocating this solution?

Just curious.


(oops; left a spare preposition floating around there)

[Mayday999]

5. To quote you:

"So the whole problem these gun manufacturers are having would be pretty much solved if the people they sold firearms to (or to whom their distributors sold firearms) had to be licensed in order to use said firearms."

Are you serious. Do you have ANY idea of what you're talking about? There are are between 22,000 and 30,000 gun laws on the books in America. Those laws include restrictions on possession, carry, distribution, storage, transfer, manufacture, sale, ownership, importation, use and more. Some types of guns are heavily taxed while others are banned entirely for large segments of the American population—including, in some cases, guns that were carried by George Washington himself (current carrying laws in New York would require Washington’s arrest).

The longest single gun law on the books is 8,307 words with a 3,710-word list as an appendix. A long article in a newspaper runs 2,000 words.

Gun buyers must go through background checks, waiting periods, and get licenses if they wish to carry concealed (or sometimes in plain sight)—but a surprising number of our public servants have exempted themselves from these (and many other) laws.

[iverglas]

6. yes, wouldn't it just be so much simpler

... if people who wished to use firearms were required to have licences in order to do so? You're so right!

Imagine if car drivers had to go through all those silly things. But wait! They do! They take tests, they are checked out to make sure that they don't have drunk driving convictions or too many accumulated highway traffic violations or court-ordered licence suspensions ... and then, if there are no bars to them driving cars, they get licences! (And ya know, they can't just go buy a car out of the classifieds and then drive it without bothering to get a licence, either.)

Don't know what all that stuff about import restrictions and taxes and special particular licences, and who's got em, let alone George Washington, has to do with anything, though, I gotta say. The question was how gun manufacturers could avoid all these silly nuisance lawsuits. I like my idea. It sounds like you must like it too!

[Mayday999]

7. Great...

Quote: "... if people who wished to use firearms were required to have licences in order to do so? You're so right!"

Thats lovely, having to get a government approved license to exercise a constitutional right. Boy thats real power to the people.

[iverglas]

9. damn that FCC, eh?

A broadcaster having to get a licence to exercise that constitutional right to free speech and freedom of the press ... shameful!!

Of course, we all know that the constitutional right to liberty really does mean that you can go where you want, when you want and HOW you want, so your comment is just as silly as me saying what you said about only about driver's licences. Really. Whether you folks understand it or not.

If you didn't have a right to drive a car, you just wouldn't have a right not to have your driver's licence taken away from you because you looked at the mayor the wrong way, you know.


(oops - that's a right *not* to have it taken away)

[benEzra]

8. The difference between guns and cars...

is registration, not licensing.

You don't have to have a license to purchase a car, to own a car, to operate that car on private property, to transport that car to a designated track, or to operate it at that track. You DO have to have a license to operate that car out in public.

In many jurisdictions in the U.S., you don't have to have a license to purchase a gun, to own a gun, to operate that gun on private property, to transport that gun to a designated shooting range, or to use it at that range. In most jurisdictions, you DO have to have a license to carry that gun out in public.

The other difference, of course, is that anti-car activists are not filing frivolous suits in car-phobic areas in an attempt to impose national gun controls that they could not accomplish through the legislative process.

[iverglas]

10. now read it again ... sllooooowwwwly

You DO have to have a license to operate that car out in public.

And the truly amazing thing is -- YOUR CAR IS NOT INVISIBLE when you do that.

Isn't it funny how that works??

So like I said -- and like I say, read it again slloooowwwly, and then maybe don't pretend you didn't read it -- there is a RELEVANT DIFFERENCE between cars and firearms.

C'mon. You'll get it. Just keep trying.

[Mayday999]

11. Yes but you do NOT need a license to purchase a vehicle.

Just buy it and keep it at home. You only need a license to use it on public roads.

But your simply analogy is flawed because there is no mention of the "right to keep and bear cars" in the constitution. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

I have no idea what the heck you're talking about with your invisible car. Poor analogy to say the least.

[iverglas]

12. no shit! Why, I didn't know that!

You only need a license to use it on public roads.

Now read those posts of mine again, really really really slowly this time, and you might see -- and acknowledge -- what I've already said quite a few times, and not just in this puny little thread.

CARS ARE NOT INVISIBLE. If you decide to drive your car out onto the public highways without a licence, YOU CAN BE SEEN.

Isn't that just magic?

You can't just tuck your car into your pocket and wander abroad with it, all unbeknownst to the public at large or anybody you might be planning to run over with it.

This is what we perspicacious folks regard as a RELEVANT DIFFERENCE.

Wanna try explaining why you don't?


What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

What part of "liberty" do you not understand?

And what part of all the laws against perjury and false advertising and broadcasting without a licence and shouting fire in crowded theatres and giving state secrets to the enemy, and the really pretty obvious ways in which they abridge all that freedom of speech that your Congress shall make no laws abridging, seems to have escaped you for all these years?

And how fast will you spin while pretending not to get the point?

[Mayday999]

13. Apparently you didnt know that....

Let me quote you: "There's that curious intervening step between buying a car and driving it.You remember. It's called A DRIVER'S LICENCE."

Dont get angry at me because you cant make a viable argument using invisible cars and silly analogies.


The reality is that "Junk lawsuits," such as the one filed by the mayor of New Orleans, seek to reverse well-established tort law principle. In product liability cases, plaintiffs traditionally have been able to sue for compensation for injuries because: 1) a product was defective, 2) the defect posed an unreasonable danger to the user, and 3) the defect caused the injury. A "defective" product is one that doesn't operate as a reasonable manufacturer would design and make it, as a reasonable consumer would expect, or as other products of its type. Courts uniformly have held that a defect must exist in the product at the time it was sold, and that plaintiff's injury must have been the result of that defect. Defendants can't be held liable for injuries that occur only because a properly operating product is criminally or negligently misused.

Using lawsuits to destroy a lawful and constitutionally-protected activity violates longstanding American principles. In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court held that civil law suits cannot make it impossible for a free press to survive. That decision was based on the intent of the Framers, with respect to the First Amendment, that citizens should not be punished for criticizing public officials. In his concurring opinion, Justice Hugo Black noted the observance of St. George Tucker that, "Whenever . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

21. 'tweren't moi!

I didn't see anything needing responding to, so I didn't.

Seems some of us can't even agree with others of 'em without screwing it up ...

[NorthernSpy]

16. cars ARE invisible!

At night, or in heavy fog, etc. The danger with cars is that the people who come in close proximity to them while they are moving are in real danger of being crashed into or run over without actual malice on anyone's part. To make accidents less likely, lights are required for operating on a public way. It's quite different with guns: carrying a gun concealed upon ones person is not the same thing as actually operating a gun in public, and simply carrying a holstered weapon does not put the public at significant risk for accidental harm.


Of course, as far as the blind are concerned, both guns and cars are always invisible...

[iverglas]

19. *relevant* distinctions

The visibility of cars in fog ... not one. Particularly since, as you point out, cars are required to be be made as visible as possible. Sigh, if only people wandering around with firearms had to do the same ... and if only, of course, we could spot them anyway when they didn't.

But our issue here had nothing to do with accidents. It had to do with how it can be determined whether the person doing the stuff with the thing is legally entitled to be doing it.

Even the silliest rkba-heads seem to think that there *are* people who are *not* entitled to exercise this right of keeping and bearing.

So why they oppose a simple, effective way of distinguishing between the entitled sheep and the disentitled goats, well, that's just beyond me.

carrying a gun concealed upon ones person is not the same thing as actually operating a gun in public

Yeah, and sitting behind the wheel of a car whose motor is not running, while one is intoxicated, is not actually operating the car, but damned if it isn't still an offence. Where I'm at, anyhow.

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec253.html

253. Every one commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not,

(a) while the person's ability to operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or a drug; or

(b) having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in the person's blood exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood.

We really do seem to think that there are some situations in which the honour system is not quite the best way of protecting the public.

simply carrying a holstered weapon does not put the public at significant risk for accidental harm.

First, ya don't get to define the problem out of existence by speaking as if the only thing we're talking about is "accidental harm". It ain't.

What it does is provide the person carrying the firearm with instantaneous access to the use of it. I mind some rkba-heads, by the way, who have trumpeted their "use" of firearms to avert the harm intended by some dastardly individual, and never had to fire the things at all. Sometimes they "use" them just by pulling their lapels back a bit and flashing them, I gather. I'll wager that most 7-11 robbers and bus-stop bandits never "use" their firearms either, if we're going to limit "use" to pulling them out and shooting somebody. And yet we don't really want people using the things to hold up 7-11s.

If all you gotta do to "use" your firearm is undo your front button, I'm seeing an extremely fine line between wearing and using. A little finer than the line my car crosses between my driveway and the public highway.

So the fact remains that anybody with a firearm can wander abroad with it, effectively "using" it anytime anybody else sees it, while nobody with a car can use it in public without everybody else who is able to see the broad side of a barn in daylight also seeing the use being made of the car.

I can avoid cars by seeing them and not going where they are, if I so choose. And I have pretty much zero expectation, if I do hang out where cars are, that anybody is going to decide to "use" his/her car to steal stuff from me or cause me to expire. I also don't have much reason to think that very many people with cars have been eagerly handing the keys over to people who aren't entitled to drive them.

There is a whole range of factors that combine to give me much more than reasonable assurance that the overwhelming majority of people driving cars have passed driving tests, obtained driver's licences, and not had their licences revoked for medical or behavioural reasons. And given the effects of enforcement action and educational efforts in recent years, I have not a bad assurance that very few people driving cars are intoxicated.

In a context in which no licence is required in order to obtain a firearm, and no controls are exercised over the use or possession of that firearm by, or transfer of it to, anyone other than the person who legally acquired it, I'd have damned little assurance at all that the person sitting next to me on the bus didn't have three of the things in his/her pants, even if s/he was a paroled robber in the throes of a psychotic delusion who'd had too much to drink and couldn't distinguish between me and a grizzly bear without glasses s/he isn't wearing, or hit what s/he was aiming at anyway.

If I were planning to scoff a law, I'd feel a whole lot less likely to be caught if I were illegally carrying a pistol in my pants than if I were illegally driving a Pontiac down the parkway. Wouldn't you?

In any event, the issue simply was NOT the comparative likelihood of harm coming to someone because of the driving of cars vs. because of the carrying of firearms.

The issue was what controls need to be exercised in order to deter the unauthorized doing of the two.

For a car, the control can be exercised mainly at the "use" point on the spectrum, because there is a clear line between "in use" and "not in use", and the state of "in use" is readily observed by the public eye.

For a firearm, there is no such clear line between "in use" and "not in use", except in the mind of the (potential) user, who is in complete control of when the "not in use" firearm, which no one else knows is even there, becomes "in use".

Actually, a good analogy I see is what we'd have if we allowed drivers to consume alcohol while driving, but of course required them not to drive while intoxicated. We don't do that (except, I gather, in some boondock state in the US). We don't let people engage in behaviour that involves a serious risk that something illegal and dangerous will occur, relying solely on their discretion and word of honour and self-control to avoid crossing a line so fine it is near invisible.

That's what exercising no (the end result of ineffective) control over who gets to have firearms looks like to me. Putting a bottle of whiskey in the driver's hand and saying now drink, but don't do anything stupid or dangerous or criminal!

[Billy Ruffian]

17. cars are not invisible,

but you have no idea if the driver is paying attention, or reckless, or drunk, or reaching for something he dropped, or any of myriad things that cause accidents ... many thousands of them fatal.

[iverglas]

20. try it again now

C'mon, really concentrate ... squint up your eyes ... and see whether you can get that point.

Of course, if you keep working, you can probably keep avoiding it, too.

but you have no idea if the driver is paying attention, or reckless, or drunk, or reaching for something he dropped, or any of myriad things that cause accidents ... many thousands of them fatal.

Does this have ANYTHING to do with what I was talking about?

Nope. Nothing at all.


I was talking about how possible it is to determine

whether the person

who is in control of the thing

is legally entitled

to be in control of the thing.


And even more to the point, I was talking about how possible it is to determine

whether a person

who is not legally entitled

to be in control of the thing

is in control of the thing.


"Legally entitled" certainly includes a variety of things; in the case of cars, it quite properly includes:
- being of the requisite age to do so in public;
- demonstrating an ability to do so properly and safely;
- not having demonstrated unwillingness to do so properly and safely by racking up highway traffic offences;
- being physically capable of doing so properly and safely.

We could of course look just a little beyond the driver to the vehicle being driven, and mention that it must be demonstrated to be something that the driver is legally entitled to drive in public, by meeting requirements such as:
- having the necessary safety equipment, like brake lights;
- being insured against damage that might be caused with it.


What I don't see is why any of those things should not apply to firearms owners and firearms.

And given that there is no way of knowing whether a firearm will be carried by its owner out into the big wide public world, and of knowing when that does happen -- whereas with cars it is very easy to see that they have been taken out into the big wide public world and then determine anything else we need to know about the car and its driver -- I propose that it is unreasonable to apply the same private/public distinction to firearms owners as is applied to car owners.

Car users do not have to be licensed to be in control of cars on their own property -- and we can see them driving when they are in control the cars off their property.

If firearms users had to be licensed if they wished to be in control of firearms off their property but did *not* have to be licensed to be in control of firearms on their own property, we would have no fucking idea whether they took the firearms off their property.

Please tell me you get it, or I'll be despairing for the future of the human race in the face of the dunderheadedness that it would take not to get it.

[MrSandman]

22. And their driver's licenses are plainly visible to all...nt

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

36. ah

Your analogy is completely flawed, and seems to have its sole basis in your irrational fear of firearms and firearms owners.

So you come to the debate armed with nonsense that is not remotely related to the subject matter, and insults consisting of false statements for which you do not even attempt to cite evidence.

Or should I say ... with nothing.

Yup. That about sums it up.

[Krinkov]

24. i'm waitin for you to explain..

..what makes liscencing/policing the use and users of lawfully manufactured and sold products the responsibility of the manufacturer.

Just because, as you see it, the state doesn't do enought to liscence guns, doesn't suddenly make it the manufacturer's legal responsibility to pick up the slack. Certainly not by any law i know of. Apples and oranges.

Anyway, moving past that ungainly red herring, i'm glad they shot this stuff down, as it would have set an ugly precedent.

[iverglas]

31. for fuck's sake

Why would you ask ME "what makes liscencing <sic>/policing the use and users of lawfully manufactured and sold products the responsibility of the manufacturer"??

Just because, as you see it, the state doesn't do enought to liscence guns, doesn't suddenly make it the manufacturer's legal responsibility to pick up the slack.

Did *I* say that it DID?

Can you please QUOTE what I said that demonstrates that I said that it did??

Lordy lordy lordy.

[left15]

27. Why would gun licenses work any better than driver licenses?

It's estimated that 25 percent of California drivers are without licenses or insurance.

The only time a driver without a license is stopped, is when thay are speeding or breaking some other law.

Unless we make everyone show their drivers license at checkpoints, drivers licenses will never stop unauthorized drivers.

The reason those without drivers licenses don't drive is because they are law abiding citizens.

The same is true of gun owners. Those who take the trouble to follow all of the gun laws are not the people we need to worry about.

[MrSandman]

28. Can't you see...

And given that there is no way of knowing whether a firearm will be carried by its owner out into the big wide public world, and of knowing when that does happen -- whereas with cars it is very easy to see that they have been taken out into the big wide public world and then determine anything else we need to know about the car and its driver -- I propose that it is unreasonable to apply the same private/public distinction to firearms owners as is applied to car owners.

[iverglas]

32. what can I say??

It's estimated that 25 percent of California drivers are without licenses or insurance.

If that happened where I live, I'd be electing a different government, just for starters. I'm dreadfully sorry, but I just don't base my opinions about things on what happens in Bizarro Land.

Maybe what you're needing down there *is* a law that does not permit unlicensed drivers to possess motor vehicles.

The same is true of gun owners. Those who take the trouble to follow all of the gun laws are not the people we need to worry about.

And isn't it just so very odd how so many people who do not "take the trouble" (?) to follow laws have so many firearms??

Of course, they get them by rubbing magic lamps.


You can go right on pretending that what I say has something to do with what people who have firearms do with them. No skin off my nose.

I know, and I fail to see how anyone else could not know or even claim not to know, that this is NOT what I am talking about.

[iverglas]

34. anybody care to address the issue at all?

From the document quoted in the opening post -- the subject matter of the lawsuit in question was the alleged practice of firearms manufacturers of

distributing firearms in a manner that
enables criminals to acquire the firearms

That is the "evil" for which a cure is sought.

If firearms manufacturers could rely on an enforced public policy that individuals were not permitted to acquire a firearm unless the individual had been licensed for that purpose (and, of course, if manufacturers did not knowingly sell to vendors that flouted that policy in their sales practices), the firearms manufacturers would have no fear of liability.

For better measure, it could be made difficult for vendors to flout the policy by requiring that transfers (i.e. identities of transferors and transferees) be publicly registered.

The present system is just one big giant loophole for manufacturers and vendors to wander through by claiming their lack of knowledge of what was happening / intent for it to happen.

The end result is that people who should not have access to firearms get firearms -- and CAUSE HARM.

If the rkba-heads don't want the manufacturers to lose access to the big loophole they now have, why don't they want some other way of preventing the HARM that occurs when people who should not have access to firearms get firearms??

The manufacturers, the rkba-heads say, are not responsible for

distributing firearms in a manner that
enables criminals to acquire the firearms

Dandy. So who will take responsibility for the people who should not have access to firearms getting firearms, and for the harm they cause with those firearms, when at least some of it COULD HAVE BEEN prevented by reducing their access to those firearms?

Step up, now.

[left15]

44. There is a system in place

Manufactures are only allowed to sell firearms to Federally Licensed Dealers (or Distributors). These are known as FFL's.

FFL's are only allowed to sell firearms other FFL's or to individuals who have passed a Federal Background check.


The fault lies in the Federally run system, not with the manufacturers.

If there is someone who is responsible for firearms getting in the wrong hands, it's the lawmakers. But the lawmakers are unwilling to change the laws. Let's not punish the manufactures in court for following the laws as they exist.

What is being asked in the lawsuits, is for the manufacturers to monitor it's distributors and end users even though they have passed all legal checks.

There is, however, no method for doing such things.

This would be like asking Ford not to sell Mustangs to people with speeding tickets. There is no tool or legal method for Ford (or your local used car lot, or you as an individual) to check police records for speeding.

In the firearms industry, where there are checks performed, and the checks are passed. The lawsuits say that's just passing the FFL and background checks are not enough, because crimes are being committed with your (the manufacturers) guns. But there are no tools or methods for firearms manufacturers or distributors or individual gun owners to perform additional tests.

If I as an individual want to sell a firearm, and the buyer passes the federal check, how else can I check to see if I should sell to that person? What if they use it for a crime, should I be responsible? Should the manufacturer be responsible? According to these lawsuits, the answer is yes.

This however goes against all other liability cases, which states a manufacturer that makes and sells a legal product, is not responsible for misuse of the product.

If one of these lawsuits were to win, it would not only change things for firearms, but all US manufactured goods.

Ford and Budweiser would be responsible for drunk driving.
Stanley tools would be responsible for break-ins.
Q-tip would be responsible for dammaged ear drums.

[benEzra]

25. Rifles aren't invisible either...

just handguns, assuming you're talking about carrying them concealed in public.

One of the reasons long guns aren't used that commonly in crime (<4% of all homicides, IIRC) is that they can't be easily concealed on the person. My wife's Glock 9mm handgun measures 6 inches by 4 inches, and it and 30 rounds of ammunition (either 15+15, or 10+10+10) will fit in your pockets or hide under a shirt. My SAR-1, a fairly compact rifle, is three feet long, nearly a foot high with magazine inserted, and weighs about ten pounds. My wife's SKS is closer to 4 feet long.

BTW, carrying a handgun concealed off your property DOES require a license (and FBI background check, and proof of safety/self-defense-law training) in most jurisdictions.

[iverglas]

33. uh ... yesss ... and ...?

One of the reasons long guns aren't used that commonly in crime (<4% of all homicides, IIRC) is that they can't be easily concealed on the person.

Do you think that maybe, just possibly, this is part of what I was saying?

The fact remains that long guns are quite easily concealed, oh, say, inside a car, until they get to the place where they are going to be used, if someone just had to use a long arm for the purpose s/he had in mind, lacking access to a handgun.


BTW, carrying a handgun concealed off your property DOES require a license (and FBI background check, and proof of safety/self-defense-law training) in most jurisdictions.

Fer chrissakes. Shall I say it once again?

There is NO WAY for ANYONE to KNOW WHO is carrying a handgun off his/her property UNLESS s/he chooses to disclose that fact.

The requirement of a licence to engage in that conduct is INADEQUATE if the aim is to ensure that it is not easy for people who ought not to have firearms to carry firearms around in public.

And, as is incessantly parroted hereabouts, CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAW.

The only ADEQUATE control for this purpose is to INCREASE THE DIFFICULTY of such people HAVING ACCESS TO FIREARMS.

The simple and obvious way to increase that difficulty is to

(a) REQUIRE A LICENCE for the purpose of ACQUIRING firearms, so that it becomes impossible for anyone to acquire a firearm from a "law-abiding gun owner" by way of voluntary transfer to someone known not to be entitled to acquire the firearm; and

(b) REQUIRE SAFE STORAGE by "law-abiding gun owners", so that it becomes difficult for anyone to acquire a firearm from a "law-abiding gun owner" by taking it without authorization; and

(c) REGISTER TRANSFERS of firearms, so that it becomes impossible for anyone to acquire a firearm from a "law-abiding gun owner" by way of voluntary transfer by someone claiming ignorance of the transferee's disentitlement to acquire the firearm.

ANY ONE or two of these measures would assist in keeping firearms out of the hands of people not entitled to possess them -- because, obviously, "law-abiding gun owners" will obey the laws in question.

Requiring a licence for acquisition of firearms will not, ALONE, achieve the purpose of keeping firearms out of the hands of the disentitled. Not all "law-abiding gun owners" will keep their guns out of those hands, whether through intentional or inadvertent failure.

But it will, and does, REDUCE the incidence of firearms being acquired by the disentitled.

[slackmaster]

18. I can personally vouch for that fact

In October 2002 I bought a used Nissan Pathfinder SUV from a major dealer here in SoCal. I paid by check. They verified that my money was good, but never checked to see if a even have a driver's license.

I also know a man who owns eight classic automobiles. His vision and hearing are failing (he's in his late 80s), so he voluntarily surrendered his driver's license. Only two of the cars are registered BTW. He had driven them occasionally. The other six are too valuable to take out on the road.

[aikoaiko]

26. Iverglas, invisible cars aside, whats your perspective on the suit ....

... in question.

You have some facility in the law. If I didn't know any better, I'd say you went to law school.

Did you think the plaintiffs had a good case? Was the courts' decision to throw it out correct?

[iverglas]

30. goodness gracious

If I didn't know any better, I'd say you went to law school.

If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were a wit.


I don't have any opinion on the merits of the suit, or of the decision in the suit.

It doesn't interest me a fraction of what it would need to, in order for me to spend time finding out what I'd need to know in order to have an opinion worth having.

Images of horses and barn doors, and glasses and spilt milk, do tend to come to mind.

Not quite literally, of course. More like images of trying to get the horse in the back door when it's too small and there's a perfectly good front door, or worrying about glasses getting knocked over when they have big leaking holes in them.

Simply exercise proper control over who has access to the firearms in question, without relying on firearms manufacturers to do it, and the problem is at least as well solved as it would be by holding firearms manufacturers liable when someone gets improper access.

Poof. Question all gone.

[Mayday999]

37. There are plenty of controls, more than with cars..

To quote you:
"Simply exercise proper control over who has access to the firearms in question, without relying on firearms manufacturers to do it, and the problem is at least as well solved as it would be by holding firearms manufacturers liable when someone gets improper access."

Ok, please explain why manufacturers are responsible for the misuse of their legally sold product? Manufacturers BY FEDERAL LAW only sell to Federally licensed wholesalers which are approved by the ATF. These firearm wholesalers in turn following FEDERAL LAW sell ONLY to licensed firearms stores; who in turn sell BY FEDERAL LAW to persons ONLY after they go through a background/FBI check.

What happens then is that at some point, the firearm is either stolen from its legal owner or the owner sells the firearm illegally to someone. What you need to understand here is that the chain of causation is broken at this point. The manufacturer has done ALL it can to sell the firearm legally and therefore cannot be held liable for misuse of their product.

So even though you REFUSE to admit it; there are many, many "proper controls" (as you put it) concerning the sale of firearms. There are over 30,000 "proper controls" in place. Which is why all of these cases have been dismissed.

So please explain to all of us why a manufacturer, who sells a legal product, through legal channels should be found liable for misuse of their product? Try not to use invisible cars and flying unicorns in your analogy.

Explain this away because the correlations are very similar: Following this rationale, then Ford should be sued because they sold a vehicle (Ford Mustang) that goes well in excess of the speed limit. Ford knowingly sold a car capable of going 125 MPH when the speed limit is at most 65 MPH. Following the rationale of these suits Ford is totally liable because a person, while breaking the law went 125 MPH and killed himself.

***Poof, your argument is gone ***

[iverglas]

38. why don't you try

... just giving up while you can maybe still see daylight?

Ok, please explain why manufacturers are responsible for the misuse of their legally sold product?

Why would I do that? Have I said that manufacturers are responsible?

Please explain why you haven't stopped beating your dog.

What you need to understand here is that the chain of causation is broken at this point. The manufacturer has done ALL it can to sell the firearm legally and therefore cannot be held liable for misuse of their product.

Actually, what you might need to do is read the pleadings in the case.

I assume that there are allegations that the chain of causation is NOT broken because the manufacturers have NOT done all they can do to ensure that the firearm is not subsequently sold illegally -- and an argument that if the manufacturers do NOT do that, they have acted negligently ... or, gasp, even intentionally.

I really am not interested in exploring this particular case to find out what the allegations were, but I know that such allegations WERE made in a similar case in the US.

And really. If I hand you a gun, knowing that you plan to sell it to someone who plans to rob a bank with it, I really really have committed an actionable tort.


Explain this away because the correlations are very similar: Following this rationale, then Ford should be sued ...

Here's a really, surprisingly, fresh and original idea for YOU.

Fucking read what I have fucking written in this thread on that little straw thingy, or, if you have done so, respond to it.

So far, poof, you're just regurgitating crap. Doing that would kinda nauseate most people who did it, but around here there seems to be a taste for the stuff.

[Mayday999]

39. You've lost this argument.

No one here can make out your ramblings about invisible cars.

This thread is about how silly it is that firearm manufacturers are being sued; not about how easy it is to conceal a firearm and invisible cars.

You've been asked repeatedly about how you feel about them. Most of us here assume you are in favor of these suits, because its not really clear due to your refusal to answer ANYONE'S questions on whether you find these suits proper or not. You simply start to ramble incoherently.

Then you start to insult people and use profanity; usually the first sign that the person knows they lost the argument.

In addition, your refusal to answer the correlation about Ford reinforces the fact that your ramblings are baseless; as does the fact that not ONE of these suits have been successful.

...and to answer you question: I've never stopped beating my dog.

[iverglas]

40. here's the suggestion again

Read what I said.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=99429&mesg_id=99441&page=
Respond to it.

It looks so simple when it's put like that, doesn't it?

Never mind throwing around the stinking scarlet fishies -- the constitutional amendments, the blah blah about all the laws that exist already. Just address the point I made. Or not. You remember: I don't especially care.

This thread is about how silly it is that firearm manufacturers are being sued; not about how easy it is to conceal a firearm and invisible cars.

And damned if I haven't said it IS about any such thing. I have said it is about the controls that are needed on access to both, and how the two differ in that respect.

People who are not either very silly or trying to make themselves appear to be very silly actually know that, and acknowledge it. Well, if there were any in the vicinity, I'm sure they would.

You've been asked repeatedly about how you feel about them.

What exactly didn't you grasp in what I said?

I assume that there are allegations that the chain of causation is NOT broken because the manufacturers have NOT done all they can do to ensure that the firearm is not subsequently sold illegally -- and an argument that if the manufacturers do NOT do that, they have acted negligently ... or, gasp, even intentionally.

Liability depends on a demonstration of
(a) harm;
(b) a causal connection between the harm and someone's act;
(b) facts from which intent to cause the harm, or negligence as to whether the harm resulted from the act, can be properly inferred.

You have heard of negligence, right? And you're familiar with the notion that not everybody tells the truth?

Like I said:

And really. If I hand you a gun, knowing that you plan to sell it to someone who plans to rob a bank with it, I really really have committed an actionable tort.

Do YOU think that firearms manufacturers should NOT be responsible if they intentionally or negligently supply firearms in such a way that they fall into the hands of people who use them to cause harm, where those people's access to the firearms, and the resultant harm, was entirely foreseeable?

I have no idea whether the firearms manufacturers in question acted in such a way. I have no idea whether the consequences of how they acted were foreseeable. Those are all questions of fact, and I am, as I have already said, quite insufficiently interested in the whole thing to ascertain what evidence of such facts there is.

But I no more see why firearms manufacturers should NOT be liable, if they intentionally or negligently supplied firearms in such a way, than I could see why a supplier of narcotics to a pharmacist known to sell them to children would not be liable for the harm that resulted.

If you do, perhaps you can explain why. I'm sure you have a complete and comprehensive knowledge of all the facts in this particular case, on which to base your proposed conclusions.

Then you start to insult people and use profanity; usually the first sign that the person knows they lost the argument.

Funny ... I don't see any insults, and where I'm from, strong language (there having been nothing "profane" about my language) is often a sign that the person using it is sick of dealing with a fool. But that's just a generality, like your own, and not necessarily any more applicable than your own to anything going on here.

And in case you really haven't figured it out yet:

Cars are not invisible. Fuckin' duh, eh?

[Mayday999]

42. Oh boy. ...whats that saying again...

"Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Never mind throwing around the stinking scarlet fishies -- the constitutional amendments, the blah blah about all the laws that exist already.

Sorry buddy, but The Constitution is not a scarlet fish. Its really sad to hear someone say that.

I have said it is about the controls that are needed on access to both, and how the two differ in that respect.

Actually the two; referring to purchasing vehicle and purchasing firearms are some what similar. Only difference is that there are 30,000 laws written concerning purchasing firearms, AND a major Federal organization oversees it (the ATF). The difference is that when a vehicle is used criminally, no one sues the manufacturer. When a firearm is used criminally, even though it was originally sold legally; the manufacturer is sued.

...and like I said, there are over 30,000 "controls" in place.

I assume that there are allegations that the chain of causation is NOT broken because the manufacturers have NOT done all they can do to ensure that the firearm is not subsequently sold illegally -- and an argument that if the manufacturers do NOT do that, they have acted negligently ... or, gasp, even intentionally.

Apparently you're wrong again, since NOT ONE case has proven these allegations to be fact, NOT ONE. There are all sorts of allegation from Elvis being alive to the existence of aliens; just because these allegations are made does not mean they are true.

Do YOU think that firearms manufacturers should NOT be responsible if they intentionally or negligently supply firearms in such a way that they fall into the hands of people who use them to cause harm, where those people's access to the firearms, and the resultant harm, was entirely foreseeable?

To date NO ONE has managed to convince a jury of reasonable people that this has taken place. Firearm manufacturers are held to a very high level of responsibility for the sale of their firearms. Thats why they sell ONLY to Federal Firearms Licensed dealers. Thats why I find these arguments to be moot. Firearms manufacturers are very, very careful how they sell their wares. Its only the uninformed that think otherwise. Like I said, if you were right, then there would have been many a victory for these anti-gun lawsuits. In the real-world, not one has been successful, therefore, once again you are wrong.

[iverglas]

43. can you read?

I grow increasingly curious.

I assume that there are allegations that the chain of causation is NOT broken because the manufacturers have NOT done all they can do to ensure that the firearm is not subsequently sold illegally -- and an argument that if the manufacturers do NOT do that, they have acted negligently ... or, gasp, even intentionally.
Apparently you're wrong again, since NOT ONE case has proven these allegations to be fact, NOT ONE. ...

How exactly do I get to be "wrong" (and "again", yet) when I have not said the thing that you claim is wrong?

Did I say the allegations had been proved? Dog a'mighty; get a grip, eh?

To date NO ONE has managed to convince a jury of reasonable people that this has taken place.

I can't resist adding, though ... and OJ didn't do it!

In the real-world, not one has been successful, therefore, once again you are wrong/

I'm wrong, I'm so wrong, I'm so very very wrong ... and yet I still haven't said anything you have any basis for characterizing as "wrong". Tough about that, eh?

And OJ DIDN'T DO IT! Nothing but allegations, as far as the eye can see ...

[Mayday999]

45. Once again...

How exactly do I get to be "wrong" (and "again", yet) when I have not said the thing that you claim is wrong?
Did I say the allegations had been proved? Dog a'mighty; get a grip, eh?

Thats exactly my point, you try not to take sides but drop off the cuff statements like the one above to try to prove your hopelessly misguided assertions. All these little wise-crack arguments and weak statements have drawn out the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about, try to make a points by dropping ambivalent comments and to date HAVE NOT ANSWERED THE QUESTION THAT AT LEAST A COUPLE PEOPLE HERE HAVE ASKED YOU DIRECTLY.

I can't resist adding, though ... and OJ didn't do it!And OJ DIDN'T DO IT! Nothing but allegations, as far as the eye can see ...

OJ was found liable in a civil court; which is EXACTLY what we're talking about here. So once again...YOU'RE WRONG !

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[skippythwndrdog]

29. Not good.

I wish people on this list would stop equating cars and guns. Guns are Constitutionally protected, cars are not. BTW, "invisible" guns are better...the criminals don't know who is armed.

[iverglas]

35. watch out

Guns are Constitutionally protected, cars are not.

When the gummint comes gunning ... its motors ... for your car, you just won't have a wheel to sit behind, will you?

Nope. No constitutional protection for your ownership of that property. None at all.

And when the gummint comes gunning for your driver's licence, same thing. It won't be worth the paper it's written on.

Nope, no constitutional protection for your freedom to move around on wheels just like everybody else at all.

No guarantee of liberty in your constitution, or of due process before your ability to exercise that right is taken away.

Poor, unfortunate USAmericans.

On the other hand, y'all are entirely free to lie in court, shout "fire" in theatres packed with kiddies, sell snake oil to cure cancer and whisper state secrets to the enemy in wartime. After all, that free speech thingy in your constitution is a right that shall not be abridged, have I got that right?

I always like it when this gets all sorted out.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

48. eh, whatever

You address something I've said, and I'll bother reading what you have to say.

In contrast the Bill Of Rights, in the United States Constitution, enumerates my right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms (gun).

Yes ... and ... AS I SAID ... it enumerates your right of free speech.

AND YET there are just all sorts of speech that you are prohibited from engaging in. Gasp! How can this be??


Somehow, you managed to miss this in my post:

No guarantee of liberty in your constitution, or of due process before your ability to exercise that right is taken away.

(said, of course, sarcastically).

Bone up. Learn about that guarantee of liberty.


Now, the gummint does have the ability to take my ability to drive on the roads provided by the gummint. See, the gummint has control over the roads. And the gummint would have to pass a law stopping my use of those roads.

And damned if that law wouldn't have to comply with that 14th amendment thingy:

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It's just the damnedest thing how *I* seem to know about this, and it's such a well-kept secret from so many of you folks.

Here's a simple introduction to the concepts for you:
http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/sdp.htm
You feel free to do some more studying on your own, and come back when you know what you're talking about.

You'd be pretty much the first to do it ...

[alwynsw]

15. Sanity prevails!

I read a newspaper aticle recently, reporting that each U.S. citizen pays an average of $845.00 per year for goods and services because of similar lawsuits. (I have not taken the time to check the veracity of the claim, but it makes sense to me.)

There's an auto accident. Sue the manufacturer! I fell off a ladder. Sue the manufacturer! I overate. Sue the restaurants! The list is nearly endless. In almost every case of which I am aware, the action that prompts such lawsuits can be laid directly at the feet of the person(s) using the product or service for a purpose that is either illegal or for a purpose for which the product or service is not designed.

Firearms are designed to hurl bullets downrange at great velocity. Downrange may be an inanimate target or a living creature; or, in the case of many around the world, evidently some offending atmospheric object. There are many laws on the books in every corner of the world that prohibit their use for criminal activities.

Punish the criminal. Punish the irresponsible user. Leave the manufacturers, distributors, retailers, etc. alone so that they can pursue the lawful businesses of manufacturing, distribution, and retails. Punish those that break the law in doing so.

The manufacturer of a product or service provider is not responsible for the misuse and/or of their wares. The person who commmitted the act using said wares is responsible.

Damn! I cut my finger this morning. I need go go start a suit against Chicago Cutlery.

[anonymous44]

46. glad they figured it out