Skip to comments.Tort Reform at Gunpoint
Posted on 05/05/2003 9:49:46 AM PDT by pabianice
Ought the gun industry, of all businesses, be the only one to be exempted from exercising reasonable care to prevent injury to others?
Under cover of darknessor a relent-less media focus on the Iraqi war, which amounted to the same thingthe House of Representatives recently passed a bill that made a single industry largely immune from lawsuits.
THAT INDUSTRY IS the one that makes and sells guns.
If a hospital leaves a sponge in your midsection, you can sue. If a car dealer sells you a clunker it hadnt properly inspected, you can sue. Of course, it may be that your suit will get nowhere. Witness the jurist who threw out the action by parents who argued that fast food made their kids fat, and who did it faster than you can say, Do you want fries with that?
But judges and juries and responsible litigants will be out of the loop and out of luck if what the National Rifle Association likes to call the Reckless Lawsuit Pre-emption Legislation passes the Senate. The people whose loved ones were allegedly shot by the D.C. snipers can forget about holding responsible the gun shop that was the chief enabler. Even though both the sniper suspects were legally banned from buying guns. Even though they had a Bushmaster rifle that came from a store in Tacoma, Wash. Even though federal agents couldnt find required sales records for the rifle. Even though the store is run in such a haphazard fashion that an audit cant account for more than 200 guns that were supposed to be on the premises.
Frivolous lawsuits is one reason Sen. Max Baucus of Montana gave for his support of what I like to call the Cover Your Butt or Theyll Target It in the Next Election legislation. Is that really how easily senators can dismiss the widow of the bus driver shot in the back during the sniper spree, who was flabbergasted to discover that the gun industry may get special protections that no other business enjoys?
Like most Americans, that poor woman had no idea whom she was really dealing with. Not only does the NRA make things difficult for any elected official who doesnt go along with it; it does the same for gun manufacturers who dont toe the line. Take the case of Smith & Wesson, which made a deal with the government to adopt safety measures in exchange for an end to some lawsuits. Those measures were scarcely radical: hidden serial numbers, a trigger lock and a plan for better smart-gun technology, which allows a weapon to be fired only by authorized users. These are precisely the sort of efforts that might have led to fewer lawsuits down the road.
Thats not how the all-or-nothing leadership of the NRA saw this treasonous display of compromise. In the aftermath of the agreement, Smith & Wesson lost an estimated 40 percent of its business. Dealers refused to stock its guns. The National Shooting Sports Foundation attacked the company as foreign-owned. Under new ownership this year, Smith & Wesson prostrated itself at the feet of the real chief executive of the industry; its new chairmans first action was to glad-hand at the NRA convention.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.com ...
Feedback to this vicious hate-monger at letters@MSNBC.com
A much better case can be made against chief Moose. And just how is Bushmaster Inc. supposed to know that the Feerally liscesned and inspected distributor it sells to sells to another Federally liscensed and inspected gun shop which has sloppy accounting and paperwork procedures or was the subject of numerous thefts? The bias of this piece is clearly evident from just this one sentence.
Hey, Anna, baby. They're not suing because the product DOESN'T WORK. They're suing because it DOES WORK.
Nice apples to apples comparison there, too. Hate much?
So? If a gun manufacturer produces a faulty product that injures someone due to its faulty construction, one can also (and justifiably) sue. Why should one be able to sue fireams manufactures for a product that works as intended? This woman's argument is stupid beyond belief.
This statement details the whole lie upon which gun-grabbing, anti-second ammendment pond scum base their pathetic, whining, gun-control mantra.
No, Quindlen, the "enabler" is the person who used something (in this case, a gun) improperly! Oh, is this too obvious for your cancerous liberal mind?
Of course, the last driver who accellerated his car into a crowd and killed/injured several was held responsible, with NOBODY trying to blame the car. Doesn't make sense in the context of the standard gun-grabber rhetoric, does it? Clearly it was the car, the car dealer who sold it, the company that manufactured the car, et.al., who were to blame.......
Thanks for posting this excellent example of gun control idiocy - illustrates their abject stupidity SO well!! Stay vigilent, stay armed, and never trust a muslim or a liberal, both being terrorists, differing only in weaponry and technique.
Hi, my name is Anna, and I propose that every car manufacturer be held accountable for misuse of their automobiles. If someone drives a Chevrolet drunk, sue Chevrolet. If someone drives a Chrysler and had a fit of road rage, sue Chrysler. If someone drives a Ford and runs into a crowd of people while applying their makeup, sue Ford. Sue Mercedes too, because Lizzy Grubman cannot be held accountable for driving her car into that 'white thrash' outside the nightclub.
This all makes perfect sense to me.
Neither hospitals nor auto dealers are protected by an Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
Yeah, you'd sue the hospital. You wouldn't sue the manufacterer of the sponge, I hope.
Quindlen, Quisling. How CAN one tell them apart?