Posted on 07/02/2013 7:36:33 AM PDT by LucianOfSamasota
Edited on 07/02/2013 7:45:27 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
“Sometimes lawyers do look out for the client...........”
Mostly they strangle commerce and destroy liberty in a search for greater profits through ever-more convoluted contract law and litigation.
Just think like a lawyer would and you can see my point. I didn’t say that I agreed with it. It’s just the way things are........
In a lawyer’s mind, yes they are.........
As another poster mentions - There is/could be a legal liability here.
Like someone says, raffle of the tickets, ‘redeemable____’,
In the same theme (lawyers,liability) if say Burger King were to hold a raffle if a ‘fat person’ won could they sue for being fat and BK just pushing their product on them?
Of course a HUGE difference if the people BUY the raffle ticket OR it is part of a drawing with the ‘winning admission ticket stub’ providing the winner.
Damn lawyers have taken the ‘fun’ out of most anything.
Get in a ‘boys will be boys’ playground fight and have one end up with a bloody nose one parent wants to sue the other, if, for nothing else, for trauma because of the fight and he gets upset when he sees catsup....so the other parent countersues because the first kid made fun of his sons high heels and short skirt he was wearing to school.
The MADNESS! MADNESS (Major Clipton)
“If one of those weapons were to be used to kill someone, they would be partially responsible and partially liable for damages.”
So you’re the millionth customer walking in to a car dealership. Bells and whistles sound. Confetti flies. You’ve won a new SUV. A year later your kid borrows the car and plows into 20 people standing in line and kills half of them. Doubtful that the car dealership will be held liable, partial or otherwise, for damages.
In almost every situation, a car is more dangerous than a gun. It has the ability to annihilate more humans in one accident than a gun typically would have. The government will never use logic, since their only goal is disarm civilians who may need to defend themselves against the bad guys and/or the government. (Often the bad guys and the government are the same people.)
that’s what I was thinking. If they had homosexual night or global warming night, celebrating some liberal cause of the day, that would be ok.
But celebrating a constitutional amendment is not okay, not if it’s the 2nd amendment.
Which other amendments are verboten to be mentioned?
Was not lawyers. Was weak-kneed executives at MiLB’s executive offices (and, by extension, more weak-kneed suits at MLB, up to and including Bud Selig)
Lots of crimes have been committed with guns. Can you show me where the previous owners have been convicted of a crime or lost a related civil suit?
Heck, my church included a shotgun in a fundraising auction. Don’t submit to liberal nonsense just because they might make up a false lawsuit.
They’re raising cowards even in Alabama? Shame on ‘em. I hope that people stop going to the games. Bob
From the link:
As such, a plaintiff does not have to demonstrate that the manufacturer or vendor was negligent or careless, only that:
a defect in the product caused the accident
he or she was using the product in a manner consistent with the way it was meant to be used
the product was not substantially changed between the time it left the seller or manufacturer’s hands and the time it reached the plaintiff
- - - - - - - - - -
We are not talking about a defective product. If that is the concern, they should not raffle off a bicycle, toaster or a baseball bat either.
Read on down in the article, beginning with the paragraph “In a negligence claim...”
(I can’t copy and paste from this for some reason)
Your church could be held liable for not taking prudent precautions to insure that the shotgun did not go to someone who was competent to handle such a weapon.
I don’t necessarily agree with such reasoning, but lawyers always look at the chain of custody and go after the deepest pockets in the chain.
Of course your church’s lawyer would file papers to exempt the church from the lawsuit, but that would cost money to the church even if they were to be exempted.........
That thought process means no individual should ever sell a gun, car or even a pointy stick.
Claiming a some ambulance chaser could sue, doesn’t mean the suit would have any merit.
Lots and lots of guns have been used in crimes by mentally defective people. If such a claim had any standing, it would be a common lawsuit. It isn’t.
The Dems are trying to make it ‘common’:
http://www.propertycasualty360.com/2013/04/12/insurance-industry-closely-watches-proposed-firear
Different topic. That is current owner, choosing to act with the weapon. It is not concerning the previous owner who is not involved with the act.
OMG - you really need to crawl back into bed and pull the covers over your head - the boogieman might get you! Talk about a "chicken little" complex! When whoever wins the raffle goes to the gun store to claim it, they will have to pass a NICS background check in order to receive it.
Gee, it seems by your posts you agree with the Dems! You keep coming up with the arguments against giving away LEGAL firearms.
Apparently you skipped over the part where I stated that I did not agree with any of this mess, but that’s the way things are in this world we have today. Lawyers have destroyed the judicial and legislative system in this country.
Whatever you do in this world of ours, commercially or privately, you have to take into consideration the legal consequences of your actions, no matter how benign or seemingly innocuous they may seem.
If my church wanted to raffle something off, I would not suggest a pistol, rifle or shotgun. Besides, most everybody already has several of each. I would instead suggest appliances or some vacation trip. But even those can have liabilities..................
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.