That's the logical conclusion of what you're saying regarding holding manufacturers liable for how someone uses their product.
In this shooting and my example, neither GM or Sig Sauer did anything wrong.
Not all Christmas gifts bring joy
- Thread starter cosmickid
- Start date
In this shooting and my example, neither GM or Sig Sauer did anything wrong.
Maybe you ought to ask Purdue pharmacy, Walgreens, CVS, and Walmart about liability for manufacturing and selling legal products.
Purdue was busted for mislabeling theor manufacyered product. How did Sig do that?
The others aren't manufacturers, so not sure how that relates to Sig either.
The others aren't manufacturers, so not sure how that relates to Sig either.
Its a talking point, not an argument. We’ve been over this eleventy million times.
The immunity law you're worried about only applies to the manufacturer, Sig Sauer in this case.
There are already laws on the books that apply to the FFL regarding straw purchases and selling firearms to people who can't/don't pass the background check.
If the FFL in this case sold the gun to the parent knowing it was actually for the kid, there's a law for that and the appropriate people should be prosecuted.
If there's a particular immunity law that applies to the FFL, I'm happy to learn something new.
GM has mechanisms built in to at least make sure the intended user is using it. Sure, people can steal cars for a crime but not nearly as easily as taking a gun for a crime. If gun manufacturers could be sued we would see them pushing out smart guns. That would act as another check to, "hey, there is a gun, I will take it and use it". As it is we leave it to a teen to create the technology.
An 18-year-old invented a smart gun that only activates with a fingerprint
VIDEO: It could help support Obama's executive order on gun control.
www.google.com
FFL? What does my Fantasy Football League have to do with this?
Federal immunity applies to manufacturers and dealers in Federal and state court.
What specific immunity law applies to a Federal Firearm Licensee (aka FFL or more commonly known as the gun shop)?
15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903.
Immunity laws are for pussies who are afraid of big bad trial lawyers.
The parents cleary messed up and are going to be in up on prison. Do I own guns yes I do. My guns are hunting guns and are locked up. I keep the key with me so they could never get in the gun safe.My kids have no access to them. If you own guns you just have to do it right. Not sure what their thinking was but being the cool parent is never a goos idea.
After reading that, I stand by my comparison of GM to Sig Sauer.
7901 spells it out pretty clearly. You can't be held liable for people who use your products for unlawful purposes.
If you're going to hold Sig responsible for criminals who shoot people their Sig firearms, you should also hold GM responsible for criminals who run people down with their GM vehicles.
Pussies aside, obviously.
Nah he's anal retentive beyond all measure. He only cared about the manufacturer vs. dealer point and he got you on that one.
I learned something out of it at least.
Hooky here’s how I’d try to explain the difference. In your example, the auto maker could be sued under some product liability theory. Now, that claim wouldn’t make it past a motion to dismiss, but a claim could at least attempted. If a gun had been used instead, federal (and some states) immunity would prevent even the filing of a claim.
To take it to more extreme examples, say an auto maker included a grill that made the car more lethal when plowing into crowds. I think we would all say that the auto maker should at least be subject to product liability laws. A case could be filed and a person would at least have the prospect of a remedy. More importantly, the auto maker would have a big deterrent in designing its products in such a way.
When you consider these policy goals, you can understand why this immunity is so dangerous.
To take it to more extreme examples, say an auto maker included a grill that made the car more lethal when plowing into crowds. I think we would all say that the auto maker should at least be subject to product liability laws. A case could be filed and a person would at least have the prospect of a remedy. More importantly, the auto maker would have a big deterrent in designing its products in such a way.
When you consider these policy goals, you can understand why this immunity is so dangerous.
It's pretty simple @hookyIU1990. Cortez is right. Historically gun manufacturers could only be sued in product liability for gun defects. Period. That's it. Today they are being attacked for advertising and how they target buyers. We don't know how this will play out - but it's the same angle that brought down big tobacco.
Last edited:
Isn't that what I was saying? If you open up the gun manufacturers for liability when a psycho shoots up a school with one of their guns, you have to apply that same principle to the automakers when a psycho drives a vehicle into a crowd.
Neither product was defective resulting in death or injury.
I guess this is why I find this crap so maddening at times.
You find it maddening because you don’t understand the concepts involved. Neither the gun manufacturer, nor any manufacturer, can be held vicariously responsible for the misuse of their product or wrongful acts of their customer.
The liability is always about the conduct of the manufacturer or seller. Think cigarettes. Think three-wheeled ATV’s. In the case of guns, the issue might be should a manufacturer be held financially responsible for putting ultra-dangerous products into the stream of consumer commerce without guard rails or other restrictions. The answer may be no, but a good conservative would say that is a function if the judicial branch. By passing immunity the legislature acts like Judge and jury. People bitch about courts going too far, well with immunity laws I think legislatures go too far.
I'm confused. Does the dealer have the same immunity the manufacturer has? I thought that was the distinction hooky was trying to draw.
Both have immunity with exceptions unique to each - states differ too
I was ham handedly going about it in two ways.
1. There's already criminal penalties for a dealer who knowingly breaks the law when selling the firearm.
2. There was no liability through product defect or illegal uses.
What I think I was missing, was civil liability on top of the criminal action of a dealer who breaks the law. I'm sure if that's wrong, someone will be along to correct me.
Sometimes regulatory laws provide a basis for a civil action and sometimes they don’t. But that isn’t the important point. Drug companies have tried to escape liability by proving compliance with law. That doesn’t work. Negligence , or concepts of strict liability, are independent of regulatory laws.I was ham handedly going about it in two ways.
1. There's already criminal penalties for a dealer who knowingly breaks the law when selling the firearm.
2. There was no liability through product defect or illegal uses.
What I think I was missing, was civil liability on top of the criminal action of a dealer who breaks the law. I'm sure if that's wrong, someone will be along to correct me.
The old English case of Rylands v Fletcher is one of the first cases studied in torts class. This concept of strict liability has been applied beyond dam failure and will support different kinds of claims involving ultra-hazardous activity. The gun industry is scared shitless that it would apply to some guns. I don’t think it would ever be applied to any gun
. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_v_Fletcher
Similar threads
