In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

>>> Battling Gun Maker Immunity ? NPR tonight

jsergovicjsergovic Member Posts: 5,526
edited January 2005 in General Discussion
Tonight on Justice Talking, on my local NPR station, they will cover lawyer attempts to blame gun makers for crimes or accidents committed with guns.

It sounds like a very pro-gun program, stating the US citizen's desire to own, carry, and fire guns, with any impingement upon these rights as the taking of a basic liberty acknowledged at the beginning of this country.

The program may have aired elsewhere.
Here is a link to this program on their site:


  • ZERODINZERODIN Member Posts: 6,338
    edited November -1
    You don't want gun maker immunity laws. That would be bad, because then there is no incentive for gun makers to make safe guns. What you want is specific immunity, but that brings up questions of how to word it so that a gun blowing up on a criminal does not result in gun manufacturer liability, but a gun blowing up on you when defending your family does.

    You need to be able to sue gun makers when their crappy guns blow up, otherwise the world will be flooded with guns with all the reliability and safety of Jennings and none of the quality control.

    Tort law is all about economics. See for a good article about the myths that are used to support tort reform. And then think about why anyone bothers to make a quality, safe product at all. It's a lot cheaper to make low-quality, dangerous products. Tort reform is all about big business, and it deincentivizes safe products.

    This is one of the biggest things the Republican Party has wrong, and they have it wrong for good cause.
  • Aspen79seAspen79se Member Posts: 4,707
    edited November -1
    Zero: I don't believe that if the manufactors of firearms had protection under the law that the quality of the products would go down. How quickly have you seen gun companies who's quality starts to slip have customers switch brands ASAP? Colt, for example has lost alot of business to Kimber, Bushmaster, DPMS, Springfield Inc, becuase there were complaints about thier quality. This doesn't apply to just guns either, how long does any business stay open if the products it stocks are crap? (Excluding Wal-Mart. [:o)])
  • agman1999agman1999 Member Posts: 981 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    It's not a simple question at all. Tort seems to be a pretty open field to play in. It seems you can bring suit against anyone, for anything, and the plaintiff decides when, or if, they've spent enough money pursuing the case. It's like playing poker, but nobody can call you hand; the bets can be raised forever, as long as you can come up with more chips.

    What we seem to be looking for is a conditional shield against liability, with some sort of evaluation process. I think we're saying that if a manufacturer is lawful in their actions, then no plaintiff can pursue damages for injuries resulting from the actions of a third party which involve the manufacturer's products. Sounds pretty complicated, doesn't it?

    I think you'll see a wide-ranging impact on business in this country, no matter which direction this moves. I, for one, would be sorely tempted to sue Ford for the actions of the driver of a Taurus that T-boned me a year ago. Obviously, a thinking person would recognize that the case is without merit, but it's no different than the gun manufacturer lawsuits.
  • PJPJ Member Posts: 1,556 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    If it is on NPR, can it really be pro gun? NOT!

    "Be kind to your neighbor, he knows where you live"
  • jsergovicjsergovic Member Posts: 5,526
    edited November -1
    The federal assault weapons ban expired in September 2004, guaranteeing gun control its place in election year politics. However, it is the series of lawsuits filed by cities against gun makers that has gun rights activists lobbying for protection. Cities argue that the gun industry share the blame and the costs associated with gun violence as tobacco companies have done for the public health costs associated with their product. While anti-gun advocates cheer, the NRA calls it a fight to "save the U.S. firearms industry." Gun makers and their allies won the early court battles, but suffered a setback in the U.S. Senate on a bill that would have granted industry-wide immunity from liability.
Sign In or Register to comment.