Democrats attempt to set legal framework to sue the gun industry out of existence

posted at 9:21 am on January 21, 2016 by Matt Vespa

Well, most of the Democratic 2016 field supports this, as do anti-gun activists, so it’s no surprise that some members of Congress are trying to gut the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005 (via the Hill):

Gun manufacturers could be sued by victims of gun violence under new legislation from 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.

The bill would make firearms manufacturers and dealers liable for harm caused by the weapons they sell. The legislation is being circulated on Capitol Hill and could be released later this month, though it is not likely to pass in the Republican-controlled Congress.

“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.

The 2005 law protects the gun manufacturing industry from ridiculous lawsuits. In short, you cannot sue a manufacturer if their firearms are unknowingly used in criminal actions. Now, why is it different for gun manufacturers you may ask, Congressman Schiff. It’s because Remington Arms doesn’t make firearms for criminals, as with any other gun manufacturer, nor do dealers willingly sell to criminals. Those who do are breaking the law. They’re for law-abiding Americans, who constitute the vast majority of gun owners who are exercising one of the oldest civil rights in the country. If their products are unknowingly or unwillingly used in criminal actions, they’re not at fault–and should continue to be shielded from lawsuits stating otherwise.

On the campaign trail in New Hampshire, the prohibitive nominee for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, said, “So far as I know, the gun industry and gun sellers are the only business in America that is totally free of liability for their behavior. Nobody else is given that immunity. And that just illustrates the extremism that has taken over this debate.”

Yeah, that’s nonsense:

“[Clinton’s statement] doesn’t appear to be completely accurate,” said Adam Winkler, professor of law at UCLA and author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, in an email to NPR. “The 2005 law does not prevent gun makers from being held liable for defects in their design. Like car makers, gun makers can be sued for selling a defective product. The problem is that gun violence victims often want to hold gun makers liable for the criminal misuse of a properly functioning product.”

In other words: If you aim and fire a gun at an attacker, it’s doing what it was intended to do. If it explodes while you shoot and hurts you, though, then you can sue the manufacturer. Likewise, if you had told the gun-store owner you planned to commit a crime with that gun, your victim could potentially sue.

However, Clinton “is not totally off base,” said John Goldberg, a professor at Harvard Law School and specialist in tort law. He said Congress was particularly “aggressive” in granting the gun industry this legal shield.

Well, maybe if liberals weren’t so eager to sue the gun industry out of existence and cannibalize scores of jobs in their pursuit to shred the Constitution, then this law wouldn’t be necessary. Regardless, that’s the left’s goal if the PLCAA is undercut, which is why this remains one of the finest pieces of pro-Second Amendment legislation on the books. Heck, even Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist whose economic agenda would cost trillions, agreed that gun manufacturers should have this protection. He voted for the law in 2005.

Silver lining: This bill is dead in the water.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

No, congress gave them immunity because they are a powerful wealthy industry that bought a get out of court free card. And you applaud like a seal.

Tlaloc on January 21, 2016 at 2:22 PM

Apparently they’re not powerful enough to get billions in taxpayer money … like the abortion industry, car manufacturers, or “green” energy.

darwin on January 21, 2016 at 2:26 PM

You cannot make the case that a properly manufactured and functioning firearm illegally in the hands of a criminal used to harm other people in an illegal criminal act is the result of negligence or any other kind of malfeasance on the part of the manufacturer of the firearm or the ammunition.

The fault lies with the criminal who broke the law to harm others.

Therefore trying to sue the gun company is completely pointless as the gun company did not make any mistakes for which it could be held responsible.

No standing, no lawsuit.

Just like the victims and their families of the North Carolina Jihadi Jeep driver had no standing to sue Chrysler. The car worked as it was supposed to, the fault lies with the man behind the wheel. Same principle applies here, and that destroys your “special treatment” argument completely.

Brian1972 on January 21, 2016 at 2:22 PM

That’s up to the court, not you.

Tlaloc on January 21, 2016 at 2:27 PM

So there should be a class action suit against Barack Obama and Eric Holder by the American people holding them personally responsible for all crimes committed by the Sinaloa cartel from OF&F up to today?

As far as chain of responsibility goes, you can make a stronger case against Obama & Holder than you can against gun manufacturers.

GrumpyOldFart on January 21, 2016 at 2:25 PM

I think you’re free to try and bring the suit. I suspect you’ll lose in court, but that’s a different matter entirely.

Tlaloc on January 21, 2016 at 2:28 PM

The entire system? Sure. But the point of court is that it evaluates arguments. Hence why it has all the rules of what kinds of evidence can be presented, how it can be presented, and who determines which is more compelling (and what threshold must be reached in terms of how compelling).

Which makes you the dipshit, huh?

Tlaloc on January 21, 2016 at 2:26 PM

lol … which is all done to ensure justice is done.

Man, do you ever review what you say to make sure it doesn’t make you look like an idiot?

darwin on January 21, 2016 at 2:29 PM

The firearm industry is not being protected from lawsuits when there is a real case to be made.

Brian1972 on January 21, 2016 at 2:25 PM

That prejudging of whether there is a case to be made is exactly giving them immunity.

Tlaloc on January 21, 2016 at 2:29 PM

No, congress gave them immunity because they are a powerful wealthy industry that bought a get out of court free card. And you applaud like a seal.

Tlaloc on January 21, 2016 at 2:22 PM

Apparently they’re not powerful enough to get billions in taxpayer money … like the abortion industry, car manufacturers, or “green” energy.

darwin on January 21, 2016 at 2:26 PM

Yep. One more perfect example of an industry buying government guarantees for their market viability is Big Ethanol.

I am not allowed to choose between ethanol containing gas and pure gas at my pump.

They know that if we were allowed to choose, ethanol would lose so they go to Congress and get every damned gasoline pump in America to dispense %15 ethanol and to hell with what the consumers want.

That is special treatment.

Brian1972 on January 21, 2016 at 2:30 PM

Wow, saying it’s up to the court is showing contempt for the rule of law? That’s impressively orwellian, GWB.

Tlaloc on January 21, 2016 at 2:23 PM

No, yours is the Orwellian dystopia. What you’re missing isthat the 2005 law was merely an encoding of common law that has ALWAYS said you can’t sue for a product that works exactly as intended. Period. The courts aren’t supposed to get to decide. They are supposed to HAVE NO CHOICE but to throw out a lawsuit like that. Wanting that to rest in the hands of a court is exactly Rule of Man, instead of Rule of Law.

GWB on January 21, 2016 at 2:31 PM

lol … which is all done to ensure justice is done.

Man, do you ever review what you say to make sure it doesn’t make you look like an idiot?

darwin on January 21, 2016 at 2:29 PM

So to you the purpose of a blinker is to drive you places? I ask because you’ve indicated you can’t understand the concept of parts with individual function as opposed to the function of the whole…

Tlaloc on January 21, 2016 at 2:32 PM

That is special treatment.

Brian1972 on January 21, 2016 at 2:30 PM

I don’t disagree, but immunity from prosecution is obviously a much worse case of special treatment.

Tlaloc on January 21, 2016 at 2:33 PM

That prejudging of whether there is a case to be made is exactly giving them immunity.

Tlaloc on January 21, 2016 at 2:29 PM

No it’s not.

If the weapon functions as it is supposed to in the hands of someone who isn’t legally allowed to have it, and that person is breaking the law, it is the lawbreaking operator who is responsible for the damages caused. The suit cannot proceed because it is completely without merit on it’s face.

Brian1972 on January 21, 2016 at 2:33 PM

I don’t disagree, but immunity from prosecution is obviously a much worse case of special treatment.

Tlaloc on January 21, 2016 at 2:33 PM

Now you have jumped from civil suit to criminal prosecution.

Should Smith & Wesson be charged with murder for every criminal who used one of their weapons to take a life?

That is even sillier than your first silly argument.

Brian1972 on January 21, 2016 at 2:35 PM

What you’re missing isthat the 2005 law was merely an encoding of common law that has ALWAYS said you can’t sue for a product that works exactly as intended. Period. The courts aren’t supposed to get to decide. They are supposed to HAVE NO CHOICE but to throw out a lawsuit like that. Wanting that to rest in the hands of a court is exactly Rule of Man, instead of Rule of Law.

GWB on January 21, 2016 at 2:31 PM

Common Law is never meant to be absolutely binding. It indicates a deference to precedent but there has to always remain the possibility of it being overturned in exceptional cases.

What they’ve done is take a general guideline of common law and turned it into an absolute rule of law, which is a terrible idea.

Tlaloc on January 21, 2016 at 2:36 PM

Brian1972 on January 21, 2016 at 2:25 PM

I think it has more to do with erecting a multitude of New Offices, and sending hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

Jeff Weimer on January 21, 2016 at 2:37 PM

If the weapon functions as it is supposed to in the hands of someone who isn’t legally allowed to have it, and that person is breaking the law, it is the lawbreaking operator who is responsible for the damages caused. The suit cannot proceed because it is completely without merit on it’s face.

Brian1972 on January 21, 2016 at 2:33 PM

According to you, and if you are the judge for that case you can certainly dismiss it out of hand, but you shouldn’t be able to prevent everyone from having access to the courts because of your opinion of the matter.

Tlaloc on January 21, 2016 at 2:38 PM

Now you have jumped from civil suit to criminal prosecution.

Should Smith & Wesson be charged with murder for every criminal who used one of their weapons to take a life?

That is even sillier than your first silly argument.

Brian1972 on January 21, 2016 at 2:35 PM

Sorry, meant immunity from lawsuit.

Tlaloc on January 21, 2016 at 2:39 PM

So to you the purpose of a blinker is to drive you places? I ask because you’ve indicated you can’t understand the concept of parts with individual function as opposed to the function of the whole…

Tlaloc on January 21, 2016 at 2:32 PM

Now I know the left is populated by stupid people, because one has to be very stupid to believe the left’s propaganda, but you are exceptionally stupid.

darwin on January 21, 2016 at 2:39 PM

Now I know the left is populated by stupid people, because one has to be very stupid to believe the left’s propaganda, but you are exceptionally stupid.

darwin on January 21, 2016 at 2:39 PM

Good, you finally realized your best path was to cut your losses and abandoned your failed argument. Congrats, you are learning.

Tlaloc on January 21, 2016 at 2:41 PM

I don’t disagree, but immunity from prosecution is obviously a much worse case of special treatment.

Tlaloc on January 21, 2016 at 2:33 PM

They’re not immune from lawsuits relating to defects in products that cause injury or negligence during manufacture.

darwin on January 21, 2016 at 2:42 PM

According to you, and if you are the judge for that case you can certainly dismiss it out of hand, but you shouldn’t be able to prevent everyone from having access to the courts because of your opinion of the matter.

Tlaloc on January 21, 2016 at 2:38 PM

There are opinions, and there are facts.

Our society is already over-litigious, and further wasting of resources in the courts by having suits that are patently meritless on their face by suing the wrong party heard in court will further bog down the system and make it even harder for legitimate victims who do need redress to get their cases heard in a timely manner.

Brian1972 on January 21, 2016 at 2:43 PM

Congrats, you are learning.

Tlaloc on January 21, 2016 at 2:41 PM

If only you could actually learn.
Alas, just another village idiot who thinks he’s a genius.

dentarthurdent on January 21, 2016 at 2:45 PM

Good, you finally realized your best path was to cut your losses and abandoned your failed argument. Congrats, you are learning.

Tlaloc on January 21, 2016 at 2:41 PM

No, I haven’t abandoned it … you simply couldn’t comprehend it because you’re a leftist dope.

darwin on January 21, 2016 at 2:46 PM

Our society is already over-litigious, and further wasting of resources in the courts by having suits that are patently meritless on their face by suing the wrong party heard in court will further bog down the system and make it even harder for legitimate victims who do need redress to get their cases heard in a timely manner.

Brian1972 on January 21, 2016 at 2:43 PM

I don’t disagree that there’s an issue with frivolous suits and there are a number of reasonable ways to address that issue, but slicing out one industry and saying they can’t be sued isn’t one of them. Any fix needs to be impartially applied across the board. Otherwise you are clearly thumbing the scale.

Tlaloc on January 21, 2016 at 2:46 PM

I don’t disagree that there’s an issue with frivolous suits and there are a number of reasonable ways to address that issue, but slicing out one industry and saying they can’t be sued isn’t one of them. Any fix needs to be impartially applied across the board. Otherwise you are clearly thumbing the scale.

Tlaloc on January 21, 2016 at 2:46 PM

Stop saying they can’t be sued because they can be.

darwin on January 21, 2016 at 2:48 PM

No, I haven’t abandoned it … you simply couldn’t comprehend it because you’re a leftist dope.

darwin on January 21, 2016 at 2:46 PM

Pity, and you were making headway.

Your point was clear and wrong and I pointed that out to you at which point you launched a number of ad hominem attacks instead of trying to rebut my point. But now you’re doubling down on your failure.

Tlaloc on January 21, 2016 at 2:49 PM

Stop saying they can’t be sued because they can be.

darwin on January 21, 2016 at 2:48 PM

They can be sued for some things and not others. That doesn’t really help you.

Tlaloc on January 21, 2016 at 2:50 PM

Your point was clear and wrong and I pointed that out to you at which point you launched a number of ad hominem attacks instead of trying to rebut my point. But now you’re doubling down on your failure.

Tlaloc on January 21, 2016 at 2:49 PM

But you are stupid and gullible. That’s not an attack.

My first point was clear and simple you’re correct. What you responded with afterwards was a jumbled gaggle of gibberish.

I can’t help it if you don’t know what the basic point of a judicial system, and all it’s parts are.

darwin on January 21, 2016 at 2:56 PM

but slicing out one industry and saying they can’t be sued

Tlaloc on January 21, 2016 at 2:46 PM

Still pushing that lie……

dentarthurdent on January 21, 2016 at 2:56 PM

I don’t disagree that there’s an issue with frivolous suits and there are a number of reasonable ways to address that issue, but slicing out one industry and saying they can’t be sued isn’t one of them. Any fix needs to be impartially applied across the board. Otherwise you are clearly thumbing the scale.

Tlaloc on January 21, 2016 at 2:46 PM

There is a gigantic hole in your logic that you continue to ignore.

You CAN sue any firearm company, just like any other company, if their product caused you damages due to some malfunction or defect in their product that they are responsible for.

Same as with any of the auto makers, or anything else.

What you want to happen would open the floodgates to nonsense lawsuits against not only firearm companies but everyone else too.

If gun crime victims can sue the gun makers, then a hit and run victim can sue the auto maker too. You must have the liability placed on the responsible party.

A couple years ago I was driving along minding my own business when a guy in a Honda Accord ran a red light and crashed into me broadside, spinning my car around 360 degrees almost into the light pole. Who is responsible for that incident, that idiot driver, or Honda? Do you get my point here? Should the court system even allow the possibility that I could waste everyone’s time by trying to sue Honda USA for that accident?

The guy’s car was functioning, brakes, ect. He made the decision to take a big risk and hit the gas when the light turned red.

How would that be Honda’s responsibility?

It is the same for makers of guns. Suing them for criminal activity outside their control cannot stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny.

Brian1972 on January 21, 2016 at 2:56 PM

They can be sued for some things and not others.
Tlaloc on January 21, 2016 at 2:50 PM

Same as every other industry.

dentarthurdent on January 21, 2016 at 2:57 PM

They can be sued for some things and not others. That doesn’t really help you.

Tlaloc on January 21, 2016 at 2:50 PM

Just like everyone else in business, they can be sued for that which is within their sphere of control, ensuring the product works as it is supposed to.

If some person decides to use that product to hurt other people, it is on that person who decided to break the law.

I will post this from the article again:

The 2005 law does not prevent gun makers from being held liable for defects in their design. Like car makers, gun makers can be sued for selling a defective product. The problem is that gun violence victims often want to hold gun makers liable for the criminal misuse of a properly functioning product.”

In other words: If you aim and fire a gun at an attacker, it’s doing what it was intended to do. If it explodes while you shoot and hurts you, though, then you can sue the manufacturer. Likewise, if you had told the gun-store owner you planned to commit a crime with that gun, your victim could potentially sue.

It seems to me that you, and the rest of the Democrat-Media-Leftist Complex do not care about the “justice seeking victims”, you just want to open the door for the suits to have standing and then launch all out Lawfare against every part of the firearms industry so that they all go broke spending time in court getting these flawed suits dismissed one by one.

You don’t care if anybody ever wins one single case, as long as it costs resources for these companies to fight off every suit because as soon as one is dismissed then here comes 10 more.

Right?

Brian1972 on January 21, 2016 at 3:07 PM

Right?

Brian1972 on January 21, 2016 at 3:07 PM

Of course!

If they got this law passed, they would become gun owners and start shooting people, just so they could file a suit and drive the gun manufacturers out of business.

That’s why laws protect businesses as well as consumers.

lineholder on January 21, 2016 at 3:12 PM

nothing to see here, plz move along

burserker on January 21, 2016 at 3:14 PM

They can be sued for some things and not others.
Tlaloc on January 21, 2016 at 2:50 PM

Same as every other industry.

dentarthurdent on January 21, 2016 at 2:57 PM

Just a point of order—it’s not like any other industry, that’s kind of the point of the article. I can sue any manufacturer for anything. I could say my mattress causes insomnia and sue the manufacturer. The case might be absurd and get thrown out, but it’s not illegal for me to have brought the suit. There is a special-wecial law on the books for ONE specific industry barring certain types of suits.

So no, it’s not the same as any other industry. It’s special, and it has been made so through legislation.

You may agree or disagree with the the motivation behind it, but you can’t deny the fact of it.

CivilDiscourse on January 21, 2016 at 3:17 PM

CivilDiscourse on January 21, 2016 at 3:17 PM

That law was passed in reaction to the strategy that was obvious from the left to sue sue sue all the time everywhere without regard to the merit of any case. They do not care about winning the suit for the client, it is a naked political power play to bankrupt a particular industry by forcing them to be in court all the time.

Even if the gun makers won every case, had them thrown out, it’s a win for the left by using the process as punishment.

That is in direct opposition to the spirit of the laws they would use as a weapon against people who had done nothing wrong.

Is there anything more thuggishly un-American than that?

Brian1972 on January 21, 2016 at 3:23 PM

Apologies to all the valid comments posted, but when ‘tlaloc’ got involved, I tuned out…

KissMyAmericanFlag on January 21, 2016 at 3:27 PM

So to you the purpose of a blinker is to drive you places? I ask because you’ve indicated you can’t understand the concept of parts with individual function as opposed to the function of the whole…

Tlaloc on January 21, 2016 at 2:32 PM

That makes no sense. There’s something wrong with the way your mind puts pieces of information together.

Mimzey on January 21, 2016 at 3:28 PM

There’s something wrong with the way your mind puts pieces of information together.

Edited for accuracy and succinctness.

F X Muldoon on January 21, 2016 at 3:32 PM

Apologies to all the valid comments posted, but when ‘tlaloc’ got involved, I tuned out…

KissMyAmericanFlag on January 21, 2016 at 3:27 PM

I wish people would ignore the thread jacking fool. I’ve been guilty myself of responding but it is fruitless. Often I see a thread of interest but don’t finish as page after page, gets jacked up and off.

arnold ziffel on January 21, 2016 at 3:54 PM

Just a point of order—it’s not like any other industry, that’s kind of the point of the article. I can sue any manufacturer for anything.

CivilDiscourse on January 21, 2016 at 3:17 PM

Point of order, but you’re a Fluking moron. And that’s the problem with these discussion with you and that other God damned idiot, Mensaloc. Neither one of you know WTF you are talking about. Did you know that drug manufacturers can’t be held liable FDA approved vaccines? You didn’t?? Shocker! So, no, gun manufacturers are NOT a single special case under US law. Not only that PLCAA does not prevent gun manufacturers from being exempt from liability claims over faulty equipment. It only prevents idiotic suits aimed at holding them responsible for idiotic usage of their products. My suggestion to you? STFU before you dig the hole deeper.

NotCoach on January 21, 2016 at 4:04 PM

There is a special-wecial law on the books for ONE specific industry barring certain types of suits.

CivilDiscourse on January 21, 2016 at 3:17 PM

So what?

The Schaef on January 21, 2016 at 4:20 PM

You can sue basically anyone for anything, but you are unlikely to win unless you actually have a case.

Tlaloc on January 21, 2016 at 2:18 PM

And there are federal laws against bringing frivolous lawsuits to court.

So what’s the problem?

The Schaef on January 21, 2016 at 4:22 PM

NotCoach on January 21, 2016 at 4:04 PM

Mostly you’re arguing against another commenter’s points, not mine. I understand what the law does and doesn’t do.

My point was that the gun manufacturing industry was special under the law.

In the part of your comment that does address my point, you mention drug manufacturers. Ok, so now we have the gun industry and the drug industry—does this invalidate the “specialness” that’s been conferred to preferred industries by legislature?

But wait, do you have an example that doesn’t include exemption from legal action due to government agency approval?

Oh, and do you have a response that doesn’t include irrational name calling and ad hom? That’d be cool too. Or, you know, not. Carry on.

CivilDiscourse on January 21, 2016 at 4:23 PM

The 2005 law protects the gun manufacturing industry from ridiculous lawsuits responsibility for their actions.

.
You know the drill.
.
Tlaloc on January 21, 2016 at 1:14 PM

.
Re-posting:

why does the gun industry get special treatment?
.
everdiso on January 21, 2016 at 9:54 AM

.
The reason the firearms manufacturing industry gets “special treatment” by the liberal-socialists-communists is because the armed U.S. citizen stands in the way of their agenda.
.
No other manufacturing industry can be be sued because it’s product was misused by ANYONE, resulting in death.

The only DEATHS the firearms manufacturers should be liable for are those caused by a defective firearm.
A death or injury caused by a genuine firearm malfunction, due to a manufacturing defect is the only “death or injury” firearms manufacturing should bear liability for.

The total, complete, entire burden of responsibility for deaths and injuries due to a criminal using a gun is on the criminal.

The total, complete, entire burden of responsibility for deaths and injuries due to a small child getting their hands on a loaded firearm, is on the parent(s) or other adult responsible for the firearm.
.
listens2glenn on January 21, 2016 at 11:14 AM

.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . period.

listens2glenn on January 21, 2016 at 4:26 PM

My point was that the gun manufacturing industry was special under the law.

CivilDiscourse on January 21, 2016 at 4:23 PM

Probably because most people don’t think it’s some judicially astute maneuver to try and sue a battery company out of existence if the battery successfully powers a cell phone that a pedo uses to proposition a teenage girl.

The Schaef on January 21, 2016 at 4:27 PM

Oh, and do you have a response that doesn’t include irrational name calling and ad hom? That’d be cool too. Or, you know, not. Carry on.

CivilDiscourse on January 21, 2016 at 4:23 PM

This is an interesting accusation, just a day or two after acknowledging that you hopped onto a thread for the sole purpose of attacking the character of other posters.

The Schaef on January 21, 2016 at 4:28 PM

. . . . . There is a special-wecial law on the books for ONE specific industry barring certain types of suits.

So no, it’s not the same as any other industry. It’s special, and it has been made so through legislation.

You may agree or disagree with the the motivation behind it, but you can’t deny the fact of it.
.
CivilDiscourse on January 21, 2016 at 3:17 PM

.
There’s a “special-wecial” Amendment to our Constitution, guaranteeing the right of private citizens to own/possess/have/bear physical instruments of deadly force, of sufficient strength to BACK DOWN our own government, if it tries to enforce tyranny.
.
Additionally, I believe ALL industries should be protected by such legislation.

listens2glenn on January 21, 2016 at 4:34 PM

“Silver lining: This bill is dead in the water.”

Until the Democrats control all three branches of the federal government again.

kjatexas on January 21, 2016 at 5:15 PM

Until the Democrats control all three branches of the federal government again.

kjatexas on January 21, 2016 at 5:15 PM

Which is precisely what allowed the Dems in Colorado to ram through their unconstitutional gun control laws with zero Republican votes.
It did however lead to 3 Dem state senators getting recalled (actually the 3rd one resigned before her recall, to allow the Dems to name a replacement instead of having a Republican elected to her seat).
And the Dems have since lost control of the state legislature because of this.

dentarthurdent on January 21, 2016 at 5:19 PM

I think you just launched yourself down a slippery slope of government favoritism. The courts are supposed to be the one path that all people have access to to redress grievances. Letting the government say “uh, no, I don’t think you can go to the courts and state your case against x because we like x, screw you” is a rather obviously idiotic idea.

So much so I’m amazed even you haven’t stopped to go “gawdd*mn, I was stupid to suggest that!”

Tlaloc on January 21, 2016 at 1:56 PM

One day, spend some time learning about governmental immunity.

Lime in the Coconut on January 21, 2016 at 6:20 PM

That Tlaloc guy proves that drinking too much of the Kool-Aid can blind you. He should sue.

Kanga on January 21, 2016 at 6:40 PM

You seem to be confusing ‘sue’ with ‘win in court’. You can sue basically anyone for anything, but you are unlikely to win unless you actually have a case.

Tlaloc on January 21, 2016 at 2:18 PM

Sorry, you are not allowed to use the costs of a trial as a punishment.

SDN on January 21, 2016 at 6:53 PM

The idea here is to allow people to file lots of lawsuits and make the manufacture of guns so expensive that manufacturers go out of business. That’s why the law was created in the first place — to prevent such suits.

The government buys hundreds of thousands of guns per year; are those guns going to be indemnified, or will someone overseas, shot by an American service member, be able to bring suit to recover damages from the company which manufactured the firearm?

Liberals never think things through. And when they get done trying to make this law, there will be enough loopholes to suit almost everyone.

They may well make the manufacture of guns a cottage industry.

unclesmrgol on January 21, 2016 at 9:52 PM

They may well make the manufacture of guns a cottage industry.
.
unclesmrgol on January 21, 2016 at 9:52 PM

.
I thought that was already happening.

listens2glenn on January 21, 2016 at 10:35 PM

Tlaloc, everdiso … where art thou ?

listens2glenn on January 21, 2016 at 10:38 PM

Two points are salient here:
1) The same folks who are so adept at creating anti-market forces and then (every single time) are surprised that others have the right to make their own moves in reaction, the same folks who really are truly economically ignorant, now want to set legal precent of suing the makers when the product DOES work. Gee, there couldn’t possibly be any secondary ramifications to that, could there?
2) Chairman Mao said that ALL power derived from the barrel of a gun, and that is why all guns must be under control of the Party. So, this ain’t about guns, it’s about control. Individual freedom IS the threat here, not guns.

DublOh7 on January 22, 2016 at 12:01 AM

DublOh7 on January 22, 2016 at 12:01 AM

.
Right-on…

listens2glenn on January 22, 2016 at 12:37 AM

Two points are salient here:
1) The same folks who are so adept at creating anti-market forces and then (every single time) are surprised that others have the right to make their own moves in reaction, the same folks who really are truly economically ignorant, now want to set legal precent of suing the makers when the product DOES work. Gee, there couldn’t possibly be any secondary ramifications to that, could there?
2) Chairman Mao said that ALL power derived from the barrel of a gun, and that is why all guns must be under control of the Party. So, this ain’t about guns, it’s about control. Individual freedom IS the threat here, not guns.

DublOh7 on January 22, 2016 at 12:01 AM

Sure. It’s never about only one goal, and the primary goal is often not the apparent one. See here:

Leftist power politics is long term. The abortion issue is only partly about abortion itself. It’s also about gender politics/identity politics, and how the balance of authority vs. accountability changes in accordance with status in “protected” groups. And it’s also about the circumstances under which a human can be denied all of its rights, up to and including the right to live.

So, yeah…

So, this ain’t about guns, it’s about control. Individual freedom IS the threat here, not guns.

Exactly. The “problem” they are trying to “correct” is that because of various legal concepts, like the right to defend oneself, freedom of speech, burden of proof, things like that, you can not be a member of any “protected” group and yet still not be unprotected. That’s what they’re trying to change.

GrumpyOldFart on January 22, 2016 at 9:34 AM

Two points are salient here:

1) The same folks who are so adept at creating anti-market forces and then (every single time) are surprised that others have the right to make their own moves in reaction, the same folks who really are truly economically ignorant, now want to set legal precent of suing the makers when the product DOES work. Gee, there couldn’t possibly be any secondary ramifications to that, could there?

2) Chairman Mao said that ALL power derived from the barrel of a gun, and that is why all guns must be under control of the Party. So, this ain’t about guns, it’s about control. Individual freedom IS the threat here, not guns.
.
DublOh7 on January 22, 2016 at 12:01 AM

.
Sure. It’s never about only one goal, and the primary goal is often not the apparent one. See here:
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/20/good-news-pelosi-says-shes-not-for-abortion-on-demand/comment-page-1/#comment-10443567
.
GrumpyOldFart on January 22, 2016 at 9:34 AM

.
Here’s the final, ultimate goal, Grumpy’:

http://www.radford.edu/gmartin/CEF.pdf

listens2glenn on January 22, 2016 at 12:28 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3