In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Who is liable for the actions of criminals?
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Who is liable for the actions of criminals?
Proposed California legislation will
attempt to hold gun makers responsible.
By Ralph Weller
CalNRA.org Contributing Editor
Distribution and copying of this article is permitted by the author.
June 7, 2002 - Two identical bills are circulating in the California legislature that will hold armsmakers accountable for the actions of criminals.
No law exists in California that holds any industry accountable when a criminal uses a legally sold product illegally. In this case, the proposed legislation will specifically call out the gun industry, and only the gun industry, as being legally and financially responsible for the actions of criminals. This is contrary to a number of media outlet's recent opinion articles pointing out that only the gun industry enjoys protection from such liability. How ridiculous is that? The gun industry receives only those same protections that any other manufacturer enjoys in this state, unless this bill becomes law. The law that currently exists only spells out rights for firearms manufacturers what every other company has in California. But, the desire to litigate them out of business by anti-gun proponents forced a bill in 1995 that explicitly gave gun manufacturers the same protection rights as every other company has in this state. For example:
If bank robbers choose cars equipped with V-8 engines to rob banks so they can speedily leave the scene of the crime, existing law protects the car makers of V-8 powered vehicles from being held responsible for the actions of bank robbers, even if they run over and kill an innocent bystander during the getaway. Gun makers will be responsible for the gun they use during the robbery under the proposed law.
If the bank robbers routinely use legally manufactured drugs as their way to get high, and need the robbery money to maintain their habit, should drug manufacturers be held liable for selling a legal product, knowing that drug addicts will misuse their product and turn to crime to feed their habit? In this case no. Only the firearm manufacturer will be held liable for the use of a firearm during the robbery under this bill.
Should the San Francisco Chronicle or a private seller be held responsible for the firearm that was advertised in their newspaper and sold by the seller through a licensed gun dealer as well? Suppose the gun manufacturer is out of business and has been for decades? Is the S.F. Chronicle and the gun dealer who facilitated the transaction or, more importantly, the private seller to be held liable for the actions of the bank robbers? Do we really want to know the answer to that?
Or, since the responsibility for ensuring criminals don't get their paws on guns illegally reside with the State of California's Department of Justice, shouldn't they be held liable for allowing such a thing to happen? Don't be ridiculous! The legislature, let alone the court system, would never assume the state is responsible for such a thing. The government only makes the rules. They dare not take responsibility for their incompetence.
Of course, the argument will be made by the less than lucid in the media and certain members of the legislature, that if a firearm explodes in the hands of an innocent law-abiding citizen, the citizen should have a right to recover in court for damages incurred. Existing law does not exempt gun makers from product liability because of defective or poor design. Gun makers have, and will continue to be sued if they sell defective products that inadvertently injure or kill the user, just like any manufacturer of any product. But, isn't that the state's responsibility now anyway? California now tests all firearms for safety characteristics prior to approval for sale in California. Shouldn't they be held liable for injury incurred by a defectively designed firearm? Keep dreaming, right?
There's a lot arrogance in California government and the bureaucracy. They have assumed full and complete control of ensuring criminals can't purchase guns. And, they are responsible for testing firearms so those considered unsafe don't reach the hands of us who are too ignorant to know the difference between a quality firearm and a piece of junk. What a racket! Charge money for a legal requirement under penalty of law and take no responsibiltiy for anything if something goes wrong. It seems the only ones protected in this extortion scheme is the government.
The real purpose of this proposal has nothing to do with victims the media is shedding their eye-drop induced crocodile tears for. It is an effort to drive firearm manufacturers out of business using litigation as the tool. Despite the court ruling in Navegar's favor last year in the California court system, the case the media keeps pointing out as the cause for this bill, Navegar, a very small firearms firm, was successfully driven out of business by the onslaught of lawsuits they have fought for years. Despite references by those who opine that victims "deserve more," Navegar no longer exists. There isn't any more to "deserve."
This is about other firearm manufacturers who still exist, much to the disgust of Democrats running Sacramento and the liberal anti-gun media. The proposed legislation is only being pushed in a desire to open the floodgates of lawsuits that will follow, not by the victims of crime, but by city, county, and state governments, which have been stifled in recent months. No, the courts will not find in favor of the government agencies who file suit. Everyone in the legislature knows that. That's not the point. It is the cost of manufacturers defending themselves for years to come as they are dragged through the court system that Democrats are eyeing. After all, if it worked to run Navegar out of business, it can and will work for other firearms manufacturers as well.
Democrats in Sacramento deceitfully claim they are not about banning guns, but only want reasonable gun control measures. However, their actions since taking control of California's government in 1999, is to do everything they can to eliminate the firearms industry from the California scene. They have introduced convoluted paperwork for buyers and sellers, hiked fees, increased taxes, and have banned entire "categories" of firearms based on appearance only. They have in some jurisdictions successfully shut down firearms dealers and gun shows. California's CCW system is so vague they might as well just ban concealed carry completely instead of wasting citizen's time thinking there is a fair and unbiased process in place. They have no intentions of letting up at this point. They've even have gone as far as to ban the sale, and in some cases the possession, of single shot Olympic style firearms, successfully stopping junior shooting competition in hopes of interrupting the development of the next generation of gun owners.
This isn't about justice as the opinion articles by the liberal press would have Californians believe. This is about an injustice that is being hatched by certain Democrats hell-bent on ending the right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms in California. If they can't legislate the total and complete ban of firearms, they'll litigate the manufacturers out of business and at the same time schmooz their liberal attorney friends with years of legal billings.
The bills under consideration are:
AB496
SB682
For a real hoot, take a look at either bill. They are very short. It will then become crystal clear that the nonsense being spouted by the liberal media in support of this bill is more than spin. Both the S.F. Chronicle and Modesto Bee are deceiving the public about what these bills are about. Fortunately for them, they can do that in anonymous op-ed articles because none on the editorial staff of either paper would have the nerve to put their name to such poor journalism. It would destroy their careers as "unbiased journalists."
One final note. As a point of reference, SB682 was written and introduced by a true defender of eliminating gun rights, Senator Don, 'I've got my CCW, so who cares,' Perata.
Contact your California assemblyperson and senator today.
http://www.calnra.org/mfg_liability.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Proposed California legislation will
attempt to hold gun makers responsible.
By Ralph Weller
CalNRA.org Contributing Editor
Distribution and copying of this article is permitted by the author.
June 7, 2002 - Two identical bills are circulating in the California legislature that will hold armsmakers accountable for the actions of criminals.
No law exists in California that holds any industry accountable when a criminal uses a legally sold product illegally. In this case, the proposed legislation will specifically call out the gun industry, and only the gun industry, as being legally and financially responsible for the actions of criminals. This is contrary to a number of media outlet's recent opinion articles pointing out that only the gun industry enjoys protection from such liability. How ridiculous is that? The gun industry receives only those same protections that any other manufacturer enjoys in this state, unless this bill becomes law. The law that currently exists only spells out rights for firearms manufacturers what every other company has in California. But, the desire to litigate them out of business by anti-gun proponents forced a bill in 1995 that explicitly gave gun manufacturers the same protection rights as every other company has in this state. For example:
If bank robbers choose cars equipped with V-8 engines to rob banks so they can speedily leave the scene of the crime, existing law protects the car makers of V-8 powered vehicles from being held responsible for the actions of bank robbers, even if they run over and kill an innocent bystander during the getaway. Gun makers will be responsible for the gun they use during the robbery under the proposed law.
If the bank robbers routinely use legally manufactured drugs as their way to get high, and need the robbery money to maintain their habit, should drug manufacturers be held liable for selling a legal product, knowing that drug addicts will misuse their product and turn to crime to feed their habit? In this case no. Only the firearm manufacturer will be held liable for the use of a firearm during the robbery under this bill.
Should the San Francisco Chronicle or a private seller be held responsible for the firearm that was advertised in their newspaper and sold by the seller through a licensed gun dealer as well? Suppose the gun manufacturer is out of business and has been for decades? Is the S.F. Chronicle and the gun dealer who facilitated the transaction or, more importantly, the private seller to be held liable for the actions of the bank robbers? Do we really want to know the answer to that?
Or, since the responsibility for ensuring criminals don't get their paws on guns illegally reside with the State of California's Department of Justice, shouldn't they be held liable for allowing such a thing to happen? Don't be ridiculous! The legislature, let alone the court system, would never assume the state is responsible for such a thing. The government only makes the rules. They dare not take responsibility for their incompetence.
Of course, the argument will be made by the less than lucid in the media and certain members of the legislature, that if a firearm explodes in the hands of an innocent law-abiding citizen, the citizen should have a right to recover in court for damages incurred. Existing law does not exempt gun makers from product liability because of defective or poor design. Gun makers have, and will continue to be sued if they sell defective products that inadvertently injure or kill the user, just like any manufacturer of any product. But, isn't that the state's responsibility now anyway? California now tests all firearms for safety characteristics prior to approval for sale in California. Shouldn't they be held liable for injury incurred by a defectively designed firearm? Keep dreaming, right?
There's a lot arrogance in California government and the bureaucracy. They have assumed full and complete control of ensuring criminals can't purchase guns. And, they are responsible for testing firearms so those considered unsafe don't reach the hands of us who are too ignorant to know the difference between a quality firearm and a piece of junk. What a racket! Charge money for a legal requirement under penalty of law and take no responsibiltiy for anything if something goes wrong. It seems the only ones protected in this extortion scheme is the government.
The real purpose of this proposal has nothing to do with victims the media is shedding their eye-drop induced crocodile tears for. It is an effort to drive firearm manufacturers out of business using litigation as the tool. Despite the court ruling in Navegar's favor last year in the California court system, the case the media keeps pointing out as the cause for this bill, Navegar, a very small firearms firm, was successfully driven out of business by the onslaught of lawsuits they have fought for years. Despite references by those who opine that victims "deserve more," Navegar no longer exists. There isn't any more to "deserve."
This is about other firearm manufacturers who still exist, much to the disgust of Democrats running Sacramento and the liberal anti-gun media. The proposed legislation is only being pushed in a desire to open the floodgates of lawsuits that will follow, not by the victims of crime, but by city, county, and state governments, which have been stifled in recent months. No, the courts will not find in favor of the government agencies who file suit. Everyone in the legislature knows that. That's not the point. It is the cost of manufacturers defending themselves for years to come as they are dragged through the court system that Democrats are eyeing. After all, if it worked to run Navegar out of business, it can and will work for other firearms manufacturers as well.
Democrats in Sacramento deceitfully claim they are not about banning guns, but only want reasonable gun control measures. However, their actions since taking control of California's government in 1999, is to do everything they can to eliminate the firearms industry from the California scene. They have introduced convoluted paperwork for buyers and sellers, hiked fees, increased taxes, and have banned entire "categories" of firearms based on appearance only. They have in some jurisdictions successfully shut down firearms dealers and gun shows. California's CCW system is so vague they might as well just ban concealed carry completely instead of wasting citizen's time thinking there is a fair and unbiased process in place. They have no intentions of letting up at this point. They've even have gone as far as to ban the sale, and in some cases the possession, of single shot Olympic style firearms, successfully stopping junior shooting competition in hopes of interrupting the development of the next generation of gun owners.
This isn't about justice as the opinion articles by the liberal press would have Californians believe. This is about an injustice that is being hatched by certain Democrats hell-bent on ending the right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms in California. If they can't legislate the total and complete ban of firearms, they'll litigate the manufacturers out of business and at the same time schmooz their liberal attorney friends with years of legal billings.
The bills under consideration are:
AB496
SB682
For a real hoot, take a look at either bill. They are very short. It will then become crystal clear that the nonsense being spouted by the liberal media in support of this bill is more than spin. Both the S.F. Chronicle and Modesto Bee are deceiving the public about what these bills are about. Fortunately for them, they can do that in anonymous op-ed articles because none on the editorial staff of either paper would have the nerve to put their name to such poor journalism. It would destroy their careers as "unbiased journalists."
One final note. As a point of reference, SB682 was written and introduced by a true defender of eliminating gun rights, Senator Don, 'I've got my CCW, so who cares,' Perata.
Contact your California assemblyperson and senator today.
http://www.calnra.org/mfg_liability.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
If makers and sellers would unite and boycott CA, maybe the majority of CA gun owners would finally get off their butt and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
BTW - I know we have a few CA members here, this is not ment to critizize yous guys
=================================
The only bad thing about choosing a Kimber ...
... there are so darn many models to choose from!
kimberkid@gunbroker.zzn.com
? otherwise, you'll find an excuse.