Author Topic: govt passes new gun law (Read 1051 times)

lazs2 · « **Reply #30 on:** October 21, 2005, 09:51:38 AM »

shamus... you don't make any sense... I think all products that work as advertised should be protected. The people or companies that make them shoud have that right.

in the case of tobacco... you are right... most people allways knew that it was harmfull to smoke but we didn't know how much and... the tobacco company did know how much and not only hid the data but lied about it.

quite a different thing.

like knowing that your line of childrens wear causes cancer in 100% of the cases but hiding the data and advertising it as "safe for children and free of any carcinogens".

lazs

Shamus · « **Reply #31 on:** October 21, 2005, 10:37:26 AM »

I think you guys are missing my point. I dont like the idea of selective shield laws, in those cases the best lobbiest wins.

Here in Michigan we have a shield law for the drug companies, tell me they are not hiding detrimental information under the guise of intellectual property rights.

The auto companies plug in actuarial litigation numbers into the cost of production to detirmine if it is cheaper to make the product safe or pay the claims over the life of the vehicle, and if you notice they are pushing for federal shield laws as well.

Since the bad faith penalties have been abolished against the insurance industry here all auto medical claims by the three largest carriers are denied because the most that the companiy can be mad to pay in litigation is what was due the policyholder anyway, they have plugged in the numbers and know that enough people will just go away to pay the company lawyers plus return a nice additional profit.

If you guys cant see this, I cant help you.

shamus

bustr · « **Reply #32 on:** October 21, 2005, 04:35:14 PM »

Shamus,

Then how in the case of the firearms industry, which is one of the most tightly federal regulated industries in the country, do you keep tort lawyers from bankrupting the industry with massed frivolous lawsuits? They were well on their way right on the backside of the Tobbacco Industry suit. At the speed some states have dragged their feet on this issue or ideologically ignored it, lawyers were having a feild day.

Almost all suits against the firearms industry in the last 30 years have been frivolous lawsuits claiming that because a person shot another person the manufacturer was at fault for the product working as designed. Or firearms constitute a public nusince or hazard because people shoot each other. Or if the gun had not been available Jonny would not have blown his brains out.

Firearms manufacturers do not have a large enough profit margin to defend themselves for decades in litigation and have been setteling out of court driving up the cost of their products. How would you propose making the greedy tort lawyers leave them alone with out this bill?

The current law being passed does not protect a manufacturer from lawsuits if the product malfunctions and kills the weilder or bystanders. It protects the manufactuer if a gangbanger shoots up a neighborhood and kills someones baby two houses away in its crib. Or someones rugrat finds dady's glock and blows away his play mate. Or an unscrupulous dealer or a strawman buyer sells firearms to prohibited persons.

It is not the firearm industries fault one person blows away another how ever they laid hands on the firearm. Just like it is not Ford's fault if you run over your neighbor with your F150 because you caught him in bed with your O'l lady.

lazs2 · « **Reply #33 on:** October 21, 2005, 09:23:39 PM »

yep shamus... I don't think you understand the bill... I think all manufacturers should be protected like the private plane industry is and now the gun manufacturers and soon.... fast food makers.

It would probly be better if lawyers were fined the cost of the lawsuit for frivolous suits and that everyone was immune from these blatantly bogus suits but.... this is a start.

There are just too many lawyers.... there should be a bounty on em till the herd is thinned.

lazs

Dago · « **Reply #34 on:** October 21, 2005, 10:34:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
yep shamus... I don't think you understand the bill... I think all manufacturers should be protected like the private plane industry is and now the gun manufacturers and soon.... fast food makers.

It would probly be better if lawyers were fined the cost of the lawsuit for frivolous suits and that everyone was immune from these blatantly bogus suits but.... this is a start.

There are just too many lawyers.... there should be a bounty on em till the herd is thinned.

lazs

Now your on to something, best idea I have heard in a while.

Just did an ammo count, got 2000 rds of 7.62 on hand in case of a open season.

dago

Shamus · « **Reply #35 on:** October 22, 2005, 12:09:47 PM »

Well your right laz I dont understand the bill, cause I havn't read it yet, and I doubt many if any discussing it here have, but whenever I hear shield law and ex post facto in the same bill I get to wondering.

We will just have to wait and see, I hope it works as advertised, but I have my doubts.

shamus

lazs2 · « **Reply #36 on:** October 22, 2005, 01:30:53 PM »

I have followed the bill from the start and in no way is it a "sheild law"... It only sheilds the gun manufacturers from totaly frivolous lawsuits... If you can prove they made a defective or dangerous product then you can still sue em...

If you can prove they made the safety out of inferior material and knew it would fail.... sue em... they are not protected.... made the frame from cancer causing radioactive waste and tried to hide it? sue em.

You shot six people with a ruger at 25 yards getting a 4" group.... the people you shot can't sue ruger.

If we had a way to make the lawyers pay for running frivolous lawsuits instead of them being able to drive honest manufacturers out of business... we wouldn't need this kind of common sense legeslation...

If our courts had even an ounce of common sense instead of agendas and greed... we wouldn't have to make common sense bills.

lazs

Reschke · « **Reply #37 on:** October 22, 2005, 09:11:10 PM »

No wonder the foolish POLITICIANS from the communist state of Kalifornia support defeating bills like this. They are one of the most litigation oriented states in the Union.

Eagler · « **Reply #38 on:** October 23, 2005, 09:00:24 AM »

the real story here is why DIDN'T this make the top news?

answer:
because anyone with half a brain saw it for what is was - bogus
and that the left would look even sillier (if that is possible) trying to demonize the bill

wtg Republicans! and i ain't even a gun owner

lazs2 · « **Reply #39 on:** October 23, 2005, 09:34:40 AM »

and shamus... it does work.. the private plane industry is making a slow comeback from being destroyed by frivolous law suits.

If you ride a bike... they can sue bike manufacturers out of existence.. they don't have to win... just rack up legal expenses and get their hands on the money the companys settle for to stay out of the court system..

it is like hiking and being mauled by a bear and then suing the company that made your hiking shoes.... they won't win but it costs the shoe company a lot of money and they either spend it fighting or settling out of court. either way... they lose and we lose.

lazs

Shamus · « **Reply #40 on:** October 23, 2005, 12:07:43 PM »

Ya know laz, in your apperent hysteria here you seem to be forgetting that if a lawsuit is frivolous, it can be dismissed by the judge and the plaintiff lawyer sanctioned. We are seeing more and more of that here. It is interesting but I have yet to meet a defendant in a case that failed to call the case "frivolous".

This is another in a long list of feel good special interest tort reform laws. The pendulm swings back and forth from one extreme of the 70's to the other of now.

The odd thing is that when you take away the rights to seek redress of damages by a person in civil court you can bet that the calls for more government regulation are going to increase.

Your bike analogy looks like the flipside of my auto medical insurance example.

You and I are not going to change each others opinion on this, so take the last shot, I'm out.

shamus

Dago · « **Reply #41 on:** October 23, 2005, 01:07:25 PM »

Are you forgetting that defending yourself from frivilous lawsuits still costs a bunch of money?

Now, imagine defending yourself from oh, say 100 frivioulous lawsuits at a time scattered about in all 50 states.

So, how would you propose an honest and ethical business that has broken no laws, is not guilty of negligence, and isnt a huge multi-national business survive and stay in business while having to deal with that problem?

dago

Dago · « **Reply #42 on:** October 23, 2005, 01:10:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shamus

The odd thing is that when you take away the rights to seek redress of damages by a person in civil court you can bet that the calls for more government regulation are going to increase.

shamus

Havent you been paying attention? The rights of peoples to seek redress from the gun manufacturers has not been removed in any case where the gun manufacturers are accused of negligence or illegal business practices.

They have just been made immune to lawsuits due to misuse of their products by persons independant of the company.

dago

lazs2 · « **Reply #43 on:** October 23, 2005, 01:26:21 PM »

So what if anti gun groups file thousands of frivolouus lawsuits? That is what is happening and every one of em have to be defended against.

shamus... give one example of a case with merit that this bill might cause to not be4 heard.

Look at the private plane industry... it is finally struggling back after being completely run out of business by the frivolus lawsuit industry.

I don't trust judges to throw out frivolous suits... they didn't do it with the aircraft industry... we gave em their chance and they let everyone down... time to tie their hands..

lazs

bustr · « **Reply #44 on:** October 24, 2005, 02:44:00 PM »

Laz,

The strategy from the late 90's going into the 2000's was exactly that. The idea was to put the firearms indusrty out of business in the U.S. by filing thousands of law suits and bankrupting them.

Remember all the city mayors who filed suits at the same time in 1999-2000? Remember all the gun control lobby groups that filed frend of the court brifs and supplied lawyers and money to help the suits? The NRA took up the fight at the federal level because the lawsuits could be fought and defeted one at a time, but the firearms industry as a whole did not have the resources to last 10 years of non-stop litigation with new suits filed like clockwork in every liberal jurisdiction that would allow the case.

"The gun ban lobby did not want to win the suits". They just wanted to file a non ending stream of suits in every state as many times a month or a year as they could. It did not matter if all the cases were thrown out eventually. It mattered that the industry had to spend it's resources in court and bleed to death.