Please help me understand Clinton's position on suing gun manufacturers

[Take Your Lumps]

I just don't get it. How in the world are so many people comfortable with this? We can disagree on gun control. We can have different opinions on how to curb gun violence.

BUT. I'm hearing a lot of talk about Hillary's campaign bashing Bernie Sanders for his unwillingness to agree with this notion that victims of gun violence should be able to sue the manufacturers themselves.

On what planet would this be a good idea?

If I get stabbed to death with a pocket knife should my family be able to sue Victorinox? If I get run over with a lawn mower should I be able to sue Craftsman?

This stance is so staunchly authoritarian. I'm just not seeing the logic in this at all.

[NumberSix]

The hilarious thing is that she will IMMEDIATELY ditch this policy in the general election and claim that everybody is misinterpreting what she said in the primary.

[FillJackson]

I just don't get it. How in the world are so many people comfortable with this? We can disagree on gun control. We can have different opinions on how to curb gun violence.

BUT. I'm hearing a lot of talk about Hillary's campaign bashing Bernie Sanders for his unwillingness to agree with this notion that victims of gun violence should be able to sue the manufacturers themselves.

On what planet would this be a good idea?

If I get stabbed to death with a pocket knife should my family be able to sue Victorinox? If I get run over with a lawn mower should I be able to sue Craftsman?

This stance is so staunchly authoritarian. I'm just not seeing the logic in this at all.

Yeah, I think you're missing the point in general. The bolded is not an example of what this campaign is about.

It's not simply suing gun manufacturers. It's suing certain gun manufacturers and/or gun dealers for certain known acts of malfeasance. Emphasis on dealers.

For example, there are several laws on the books that would let you sue a bar that continually served a person who injured you while DUI.

dram shop laws n. a statute or case law in 38 states which makes a business which sells alcoholic drinks or a host who serves liquor to a drinker who is obviously intoxicated or close to it, strictly liable to anyone injured by the drunken patron or guest.

The idea is to do something similar for shady gun dealers. A huge number of guns used in criminal cases can be traced back to like 1% of gun shops. These gun shops Here's one law pushed by Democrats.

The Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act would roll back long-standing protections enjoyed by the gun industry that shields it from many lawsuits. .....
“Congress passed a unique form of immunity for only one industry — and that is the gun industry,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) told The Hill in an interview.

“If you’re a carmaker and your airbags kill someone, you’re potentially liable,” continued Schiff, one of the lawmakers behind the gun control bill. “If you’re a pharmaceutical company and sell faulty drugs, you can be held liable. If you’re a liquor store and sell alcohol to minors, you can be held liable."

“Why should it be any different for gun manufacturers?” he asked.

Congress approved the controversial Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005. It is intended to protect the gun industry from frivolous lawsuits.

The new bill would repeal these protections........
Democrats say the bill targets irresponsible gun dealers who sell firearms to "straw purchasers," which act as intermediaries between dealers and criminals.

Straw purchasers often buy hundreds of guns from a dealer or manufacturer and then sell them on the black market to people who might not pass the required background checks.

Gun manufacturers and dealers who sell to suspected straw purchasers could be dragged into court under the legislation.

“There are straw purchasers who will buy dozens of the same gun,” Schiff explained. “It’s quite clear they’re not buying those guns for personal use. Who needs that many of the same gun?

I think lawsuits going after shady gun dealers would probably be a good thing. Prior to Congress passing the law,things like this were occurring.

Before the PLCAA, lawsuits were starting to prod the gun industry to act more responsibly. In 2000, Smith & Wesson, the nation’s largest handgun manufacturer, agreed to a variety of safety conditions to end lawsuits that threatened to put it in bankruptcy. Among other things, Smith & Wesson agreed to put a second, hidden set of serial numbers on all of its new guns to make it harder for criminals to scratch away the identifying markings.

I think keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and making guns used in crimes easier to trace are reasonable and I bet the majority of gun owners would as well.

[Take Your Lumps]

The hilarious thing is that she will IMMEDIATELY ditch this policy in the general election and claim that everybody is misinterpreting what she said in the primary.

No doubt about it. And you're a sexist for even insinuating it!

This is the exact transcript of what he said to the NY Daily News:



Of course they don't realize allowing litigation against manufacturers would open Pandora's box and would not only affect the gun industry. It's ****ing madness and the MSM is running with it too. Complete disconnect from common sense and reality.

[FillJackson]

Here's case in Missouri where a mentally ill woman bought a gun. Her family took it away and called the gunshop and told her she was ill and not to sell her anymore guns. Two days after that call he bought a gun from that very shop and killed her father.

The family is suing the gunshop, but certain parts of the lawsuit were thrown out because of this no liability law.

[NumberSix]

Here's case in Missouri where a mentally ill woman bought a gun. Her family took it away and called the gunshop and told her she was ill and not to sell her anymore guns. Two days after that call he bought a gun from that very shop and killed her father.

The family is suing the gunshop, but certain parts of the lawsuit were thrown out because of this no liability law.

And you understand that gun shops don't actually manufacture the guns, right?

[Take Your Lumps]

Hillary is getting ROASTED right now on her Sandy Hook attack

https://www.facebook.com/hillaryclin...8138464909348/

What sort of bubble do you have to be living in to believe that a) it's a good idea to invoke dead school children to score political points and b) that many people outside of your shrinking democratic base of voters are even going to agree with you in gun-loving America?

Most Americans are for common-sense gun control measures...but suing manufacturers and pitting your opponent against the victims of a senseless massacre? WTF. Just be honest and come out and say that you believe that gun manufacturing should be outlawed.

[Patrick Chewing]

Gun dealers and Gun Manufacturers are two totally different things.


Sue the gun dealer for not providing a background check....fine.

Go after the gun manufacturer and then the gun manufacturers will take their companies overseas where Hillary's grubby hands can't touch them, possibly making it tougher for ordinary citizens to obtain guns.


Hence, her form of Gun Control.

[FillJackson]

so no one actually wants to understand.

got it.

[Take Your Lumps]

so no one actually wants to understand.

got it.

You missed the point completely. We're talking about manufacturers being sued, not gun shops.

I think we can all agree that gun shops who knowingly sell to bad actors should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

But suing gun manufacturers because they legally created a gun that somehow or another found its way into the hands of an insane person? How is that American? I don't even know what that is.

[FillJackson]

What sort of bubble do you have to be living in to believe that a) it's a good idea to invoke dead school children to score political points and b) that many people outside of your shrinking democratic base of voters are even going to agree with you in gun-loving America?

Probably the same bubble that doesn't realize that what is actually shrinking is the number of gun owners in America? The number of households that own guns is at the lowest point in at least 30 years.

Gun sales are surging, but it's the same people buying many, many guns.

[Take Your Lumps]

Probably the same bubble that doesn't realize that what is actually shrinking is the number of gun owners in America? The number of households that own guns is at the lowest point in at least 30 years.

Gun sales are surging, but it's the same people buying many, many guns.

What does any of that have to do with gun manufacturers being held liable for how people utilize a legally created and marketed firearm? I feel like you're speaking in talking points.

What I would like to know is: what is the logic that, in your mind, rationalizes families being able to sue gun manufacturers in cases like Sandy Hook? And how do you do that in a way that wouldn't affect a myriad of other industries?

Why not just come out and say that guns should be outlawed?

For the record, I don't own a gun...have never even shot a gun.

[Take Your Lumps]

It's not simply suing gun manufacturers. It's suing certain gun manufacturers and/or gun dealers for certain known acts of malfeasance. Emphasis on dealers.

Ah...I missed this before, now we're getting to the heart of it.

This latest line of attack is ONLY about Sandy Hook victims suing the manufacturers though. That's what the NY Daily News specifically asked about. Bernie even repeated the question back to them before answering it. I posted a screenshot above of that excerpt from the transcript if you'd like to read it word for word. It's astoundingly clear.

Hillary has also explicitly mentioned this exact question when attacking him throughout the day. She, nor the NY Daily News, ever brought up holding bad gun dealers liable in the past 24 hours. That's what's so disingenuous about this whole thing. Why? Because they both agree on that issue.

[DukeDelonte13]

No member of the executive branch gets to control what judges do.

[DukeDelonte13]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/22/health...s-gun-lawsuit/

here is a article summing up the actual lawsuit.

TLDR gun manufactures are already exempt from being held liable from people using their products to commit criminal acts due to federal legislation.

There is a negligent entrustment exception. The Plaintiffs are basically saying:

"the way in which the company sells and markets a military-style weapon to the civilian market is a form of negligent entrustment."

Personally I think the issue should be allowed to proceed to trial and go through the appellate process.