Gunmaker Liability Bill Goes Down in Defeat

Fox News ^ | 3/2/2004 | Fox News

[GrandEagle]

WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats gunning for a ban on assault weapons forced down a bill preventing gun manufacturers from liability after the bill's sponsor said the amendment made the measure too unpalatable.

[GrandEagle]

but the preponderance of "stupid" cases have been getting thrown out.
The approach from the anti-gunners is that it's ok if they get thrown out. It still costs the manufacturer lots of money. The looser should have to pay all costs associated with these stupid cases.

[Jotmo]

Once the AW ban sunsets, even for a month, people will stockpile magazines, and pre-ban-type weapons so that a temporary resumption of the ban would be irrelevant for a long time

Darn right. I'll be one of them. Need some 30 round clips for my 10/22, among other things.

[Alissa]

Must have been a Freudian slip!

[Pearls Before Swine]

The approach from the anti-gunners is that it's ok if they get thrown out. It still costs the manufacturer lots of money.

Yup. The manufacturers are relatively small operations, both in terms of gross revenues and net profits; the Dem party, Soros, et. al., and the various government funded 'social law' groups have more money and free legal volunteer time. Frivolous legal actions, in the absence of a loser pays law, and in the absence of a sound judiciary to quickly throw them out, are a tax. "The ability to tax is the ability to destroy."

[templar]

What needs to be done is to get away from the gun issue entirely and pass a bill protecting all manufacturers, distributors, retailers, etc. in the United States from liability for the criminal misuse of any products they legally make or sell.

[BJClinton]

The looser should have to pay all costs associated with these stupid cases.

One of the many cases for Tort Reform.

[RedQuill]

...you mean Wayne La Pierre isn't the Director of the National Education Association now???

Rats.

:-(

[GrandEagle]

United States from liability for the criminal misuse of any products they legally make or sell.
100% with you there.

[templar]

The people have many levels to work on, and not every matter requires a Congressional solution.

True. However, IMO, aggressive misuse of the courts for political purposes needs to be dealt with on a legislative level, in this case a Federal legislative level.

[Texas Federalist]

I like your idea to broaden the scope of the bill. However, no one has explored the issue of whether this is a federal issue. Where does the Constitution grant the federal government authority to define the scope of state common law?

I am very uncomfortable about turning gun ownership into a federal issue. Around 31 states have already passed gunmaker immunity legislation and 15 more have proposed such legislation, so it wouldn't be impractical to work for this on a state level.

[alaskanfan]

The looser should have to pay all costs associated with these stupid cases.

That will never pass. What would all of those trial lawyers in the legislature do after they get voted out. They wouldn't have anyone to sue.

[Cboldt]

IMO, aggressive misuse of the courts for political purposes needs to be dealt with on a legislative level, in this case a Federal legislative level.

Attempts to misuse courts for political purposes would stop dead, if we had principled judges and an educated public.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, it's worth keeping a keen eye on the content of legislation. I'm all for bills that legislate political cases to be outside the purview of court (the gun/car worked as it was supposed to, therefore it is defective), but I don't want to trade a ban on ugly weapons to get that.

[templar]

I am very uncomfortable about turning gun ownership into a federal issue. Around 31 states have already passed gunmaker immunity legislation and 15 more have proposed such legislation, so it wouldn't be impractical to work for this on a state level

Gun ownership is not an issue in this bill (except with regards to riders being placed on it). As far as turning gun ownership into a Fedral issue, that was done back in '34 with the NFA. Unless all 50 states pass the same law protecting manufactures from suit, there will still be suits filed. IN addition, State immunities will not prevent these suits from being brought in Federal courts since virtually all guns are manufactured for sale in interstate commerce and cross multiple jurisidictions. A State law granting immunity will only result in a Federal filing if immunity is not granted on that level as well.

[Texas Federalist]

State immunities will not prevent these suits from being brought in Federal courts since virtually all guns are manufactured for sale in interstate commerce and cross multiple jurisidictions.

State immunity laws are applicable to suits brought in federal courts. In a product liability suit, federal courts apply the law of the state either where the injury occurred or with the most significant relation to the case (depending on the state where the federal court sits). Generally, this results in the application of the law of the state where the defendant resides, the gun is sold, or the gun is manufactured.

[Wilhelm Tell]

You said the magic words: tort reform. I am relieved that Senator Craig killed the bill rather than allowing it to pass with the poison-pill AW ban. Probably it would have failed in the House, but who can be sure? If this bill continued, there would be the remote chance that the industry protection part would have been vetted until it was meaningless, and the gun ban part would have been "enhanced" with even more restrictions. This is a situation where the best offense is a good defense -- perhaps next year the numbers will be such that we can focus more on passing good legislation than just blocking bad legislation. Now instead of hysterical stories about guns, the media will have to be satisfied with investigative pieces about how many fillings George Bush has and how "presidential" J. F. Kerry looks.

[TigersEye]

Yes, but it is still a big Democrat win. If it had passed: the AWB was renewed If it failed you can sue firearms manufacturers out of existence.

I see it differently. If the AWB is renewed it will be with us forever; nearly impossible to eliminate and an open door for adding model after model of firearm to the ban list. OTOH if the AWB sunsets it will be very difficult for a new and similar ban to be instituted. As Lott says; it will be seen as the ten year failed waste of time and money that it is.

As for the gunmaker's liability bill? It's just a bill going through the process.

Like almost every bill that has become law it will have its ups and downs and be tortured and teased by political wrangling having nothing to do with the bill itself. It's a good bill with strong support and will very likely be passed within a year's time.

[TigersEye]

I am relieved that Senator Craig killed the bill rather than allowing it to pass with the poison-pill AW ban.

Amen to that! IMO the AP bullet ban and study was enough to kill the whole thing. It was a wide open door to ban almost all centerfire rifle ammo.

[rwfromkansas]

That is an Associated Press story Fox just added to their site.

It is actually an AP oopsie, not one of Fox's.

Though hopefully somebody will catch it and change it now.

[RedMonqey]

On the Floor Kerry proclaimed the view (in my words) his steady support for the 2nd. Amend but then went on to say as a hunter he didn't need an assault rifle and that the 2nd didn't give the people the right to carry around military grade assault rifles on the street.

Pray tell us, Senator, if the 2nd isn't about military type weapons for the militia i.e. all able bodied men 18-65), then WHAT THE HELL does it mean?

Where does it mention HUNTING anywhere in the Constitution?

[TigersEye]

bttt