Go Back  

44+ Gun Companies Stop Selling to Law Enforcement in Anti-2nd Amendment States 

Current Rating:

Join NowJoin Now
 
  #21  
Old 02-27-2013, 11:23 PM
Broadjumper's Avatar
Broadjumper
Offline:
My Rank: SECOND LIEUTENANT
Poster Rank:189
Male
Join Date: Aug 2009
 
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Quoted: 1178 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
3/20 15/20
Today Posts
8/11 sssss5087
Re: 44+ Gun Companies Stop Selling to Law Enforcement in Anti-2nd Amendment States

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbaj12 View Post
Why is a gun company responsible for person 1 shooting person 2?

Should Toyota be responsible when person 1 has road rage and crashes their Prius into person 2?
Your examples aren't analogous to the real issue. It's tort liability, essentially it's an issue of negligence. And if it can be proved in a court of law, then it should be recompensable. All congress did was give almost anyone associated with gun sales or distribution a total pass...

Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-27-2013, 11:28 PM
pbaj12's Avatar
pbaj12
Offline:
Captain of a Sinking Ship
Poster Rank:887
Join Date: Jan 2012
Contributions: 14
 
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 49 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
2/20 10/20
Today Posts
1/11 ssssss523
Re: 44+ Gun Companies Stop Selling to Law Enforcement in Anti-2nd Amendment States

Quote:
Originally Posted by Broadjumper View Post
Your examples aren't analogous to the real issue. It's tort liability, essentially it's an issue of negligence. And if it can be proved in a court of law, then it should be recompensable. All congress did was give almost anyone associated with gun sales or distribution a total pass...
Give me an example where a manufacturer should be liable and they aren't because of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-28-2013, 02:21 AM
Broadjumper's Avatar
Broadjumper
Offline:
My Rank: SECOND LIEUTENANT
Poster Rank:189
Male
Join Date: Aug 2009
 
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Quoted: 1178 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
3/20 15/20
Today Posts
8/11 sssss5087
Re: 44+ Gun Companies Stop Selling to Law Enforcement in Anti-2nd Amendment States

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbaj12 View Post
Give me an example where a manufacturer should be liable and they aren't because of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
**sigh**

First off, this does more than simply indemnify manufacturers, it "prohibit[s] causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products..."

And if you can't think of a SINGLE example where ONE of this protected class of 'businessmen' could be or should be open to liability, then I'm not gonna waste my time spelling it out for you, you're hopeless.

Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-28-2013, 03:13 AM
pbaj12's Avatar
pbaj12
Offline:
Captain of a Sinking Ship
Poster Rank:887
Join Date: Jan 2012
Contributions: 14
 
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 49 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
2/20 10/20
Today Posts
1/11 ssssss523
Re: 44+ Gun Companies Stop Selling to Law Enforcement in Anti-2nd Amendment States

Quote:
Originally Posted by Broadjumper View Post
**sigh**

First off, this does more than simply indemnify manufacturers, it "prohibit[s] causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products..."

Yes, I've already said who is covered under the law but it's a little easier to name one of them instead of all of them every single time. I'll name them all for you in the future.

And if you can't think of a SINGLE example where ONE of this protected class of 'businessmen' could be or should be open to liability, then I'm not gonna waste my time spelling it out for you, you're hopeless.

Thank you for taking the time to tell me in a paragraph what a waste of time it would be to give me a SINGLE example.

I forgot you think manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products should be responsible for a person's actions, even though they're only affiliated with a person by giving them a correctly functioning product.


Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-28-2013, 12:58 PM
GregK's Avatar
GregK
Offline:
My Rank: FIRST SERGEANT
Poster Rank:313
male
Join Date: Sep 2012
 
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Quoted: 461 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
0/20 9/20
Today Posts
0/11 sssss2473
Re: 44+ Gun Companies Stop Selling to Law Enforcement in Anti-2nd Amendment States

America aint loosing our guns. Just like we aint gonna stop smoking tabacco, doing deugs and getting drunk. The american way. Im not worried. I tried to work in as many 'aint's' as possible. Thank you.

Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-28-2013, 01:01 PM
GregK's Avatar
GregK
Offline:
My Rank: FIRST SERGEANT
Poster Rank:313
male
Join Date: Sep 2012
 
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Quoted: 461 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
0/20 9/20
Today Posts
0/11 sssss2473
Re: 44+ Gun Companies Stop Selling to Law Enforcement in Anti-2nd Amendment States

Why would a gun or gun supply comp. be liable for someone using their product in a violent way? Knives, hatchet, axes....hell even swords are mannufactured for a reason. If people decide to use such items as weapons thats human error.

Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to GregK For This Useful Post:
pbaj12
  #27  
Old 03-01-2013, 02:04 PM
johnleeknoefler's Avatar
johnleeknoefler
Offline:
So Fucking Banned
Poster Rank:229
Male
Join Date: May 2010
Contributions: 26
 
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
0/20 13/20
Today Posts
0/11 sssss3866
Re: 44+ Gun Companies Stop Selling to Law Enforcement in Anti-2nd Amendment States

Quote:
Originally Posted by Broadjumper View Post
I didn't say that, the question is WHY should they be immune to lawsuits if there's legitimate legal grounds for one? If a weapon is needlessly (negligently) dangerous or if they've distributed them carelessly, then why shouldn't they be liable to be sued?
Can you site a specific incident or are you simply tilting at windmills?

Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-01-2013, 02:06 PM
johnleeknoefler's Avatar
johnleeknoefler
Offline:
So Fucking Banned
Poster Rank:229
Male
Join Date: May 2010
Contributions: 26
 
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
0/20 13/20
Today Posts
0/11 sssss3866
Re: 44+ Gun Companies Stop Selling to Law Enforcement in Anti-2nd Amendment States

Quote:
Originally Posted by Broadjumper View Post
Your examples aren't analogous to the real issue. It's tort liability, essentially it's an issue of negligence. And if it can be proved in a court of law, then it should be recompensable. All congress did was give almost anyone associated with gun sales or distribution a total pass...
So then why isn't Holder being prosecuted? He did negligently cause firearms to be distributed to Mexican drug cartels. He ordered gun dealers to make sales to straw purchasers and then watched while the guns were transported to Mexico.

Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-03-2013, 11:03 PM
osmosis321
Offline:
My Rank: PRIVATE FIRST CLASS
Poster Rank:3560
Join Date: Nov 2012
 
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
0/20 8/20
Today Posts
1/11 sssssss58
Re: 44+ Gun Companies Stop Selling to Law Enforcement in Anti-2nd Amendment States

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbaj12 View Post
Why is a gun company responsible for person 1 shooting person 2?

Should Toyota be responsible when person 1 has road rage and crashes their Prius into person 2?
That's not his point. His point is that the gun industry enjoys protections afforded to no other industry.
Should Toyota be responsible? That's the point. If it were Toyota, there would at least be a *chance* of having a wrong righted. The issue would make it to court and a decision made. With industry protection like the gun lobby has, the issue won't even get into court. The decision's already been made.

Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-04-2013, 03:46 AM
pbaj12's Avatar
pbaj12
Offline:
Captain of a Sinking Ship
Poster Rank:887
Join Date: Jan 2012
Contributions: 14
 
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 49 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
2/20 10/20
Today Posts
1/11 ssssss523
Re: 44+ Gun Companies Stop Selling to Law Enforcement in Anti-2nd Amendment States

Quote:
Originally Posted by osmosis321 View Post
That's not his point. His point is that the gun industry enjoys protections afforded to no other industry.
Should Toyota be responsible? That's the point. If it were Toyota, there would at least be a *chance* of having a wrong righted. The issue would make it to court and a decision made. With industry protection like the gun lobby has, the issue won't even get into court. The decision's already been made.
What other industry has had people suing a manufacturer for making a legal, correctly functioning product that was sold legally to a person which broke laws to hurt/kill someone?

And no, Toyota shouldn't be responsible (and shouldn't be able to be sued at all) for a person driving a legal, correctly functioning Toyota and crashing into someone else because of road rage. I'd like to think a person wouldn't need a court to figure that one out.

Would it be okay to make laws like the PLCAA for other industries?



If I had my legally owned gun kept in a locked safe and a person broke in, stole it then killed someone with it..do you think I should be responsible?

Reply With Quote

Powered by vBulletin Copyright 2000-2010 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO