[Broadjumper]

Originally Posted by pbaj12 ↗

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...

[pbaj12]

Originally Posted by Broadjumper ↗

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.

[Broadjumper]

Originally Posted by pbaj12 ↗

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.

[pbaj12]

Originally Posted by Broadjumper ↗

**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.

[GregK]

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.

[GregK]

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.

[johnleeknoefler]

Originally Posted by Broadjumper ↗

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?

[johnleeknoefler]

Originally Posted by Broadjumper ↗

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.

[osmosis321]

Originally Posted by pbaj12 ↗

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.

[pbaj12]

Originally Posted by osmosis321 ↗

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?