Pennsylvania court strikes down law protecting gun manufacturers from lawsuits

[jumpinjoe]

Every one I've bought in the last few years comes with a handy warning from the ATF that I might be responsible if a minor improperly uses a weapon I haven't stored properly. It'd be crazy to say the owners were not warned about consequences when they bought the firearm, or that a reasonable person wouldn't know to keep a loaded firearm secured away from kids.

And that's the way it should be. The owner, or the one responsible for any implement has a responsibility to ensure it's used in a safe and lawful manner, not the manufacturer. However, any misuse or abuse of any product through or by way of negligence of that owner should be consequential. Is the "Mars" candy company responsible for people who eat too much candy and get fat .... should they be? Is Ford Motor Co, responsible for drunk drivers and the carnage they cause ...... should they be? You can see where this goes, and it's a pure and simply asinine premise unless and until the manufacturer produces and sells a defective product ...... then they should be!

But this ruling has absolutely nothing to do with manufacturing a defective product ..... it has to do with an anti gun sentiment of a certain segment of the population, and a liberal judge legislating from the bench.

 

[benstt]

I didn't say "our current legal system is contrary to the Constitution". What I said/implied is that far too many liberal rulings are based on technicalities rather than truth. I agree that "justice is too subjective" in and of itself. That's why we require evidence and juries of our peers. We enjoy (in most cases) the presumption of innocence. But far, far too often we see rulings based on legalities and/or technicalities (some as thin as the one we're discussing) to rule the day. It has very little to do with our constitution, it has to do with left leaning judges legislating from the bench.

Now for my curiosity ..... do you think all this rioting, burning, looting, etc, etc that's gone on for months with little or no consequence is justified, or has it simply been legalized?

I don't think the rioting, burning, looting, etc is either just or legal. I think any person caught doing such things needs to be prosecuted. If I'm to be put on the spot, after time as both a prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney I've seen a marked difference in the way black people and white people are treated in the legal system from beginning to end. I can also say I've seen a marked difference between the way poor people and people of any means are treated, so I'm not willing to say this is a strictly racial disparity but rather a power disparity. In any event, burning a sizable chunk of a city or destroying property is not justified. I'd say it's been ignored due to policy and politics, but it is neither just not legal. There should be consequences for rioters, looters, and arsonists. Those consequences should be in accordance with the law, though, and not meted out with a baton.

 

[benstt]

And that's the way it should be. The owner, or the one responsible for any implement has a responsibility to ensure it's used in a safe and lawful manner, not the manufacturer. However, any misuse or abuse of any product through or by way of negligence of that owner should be consequential. Is the "Mars" candy company responsible for people who eat too much candy and get fat .... should they be? Is Ford Motor Co, responsible for drunk drivers and the carnage they cause ...... should they be? You can see where this goes, and it's a pure and simply asinine premise unless and until the manufacturer produces and sells a defective product ...... then they should be!

But this ruling has absolutely nothing to do with manufacturing a defective product ..... it has to do with an anti gun sentiment of a certain segment of the population, and a liberal judge legislating from the bench.

I agree with almost all of that.

 

[jumpinjoe]

I don't think the rioting, burning, looting, etc is either just or legal. I think any person caught doing such things needs to be prosecuted. If I'm to be put on the spot, after time as both a prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney I've seen a marked difference in the way black people and white people are treated in the legal system from beginning to end. I can also say I've seen a marked difference between the way poor people and people of any means are treated, so I'm not willing to say this is a strictly racial disparity but rather a power disparity. In any event, burning a sizable chunk of a city or destroying propoerty is not justified. I'd say it's been ignored due to policy and politics, but it is neither just not legal. There should be consequences for rioters, looters, and arsonists. Those consequences should be in accordance with the law, though, and not meted out with a baton.

I used the word "legalized" with as much sarcasm as I could muster even though it doesn't show in the written word. My intent in using the word was that in so many of these cases the city fathers/leaders have chosen to overlook these atrocities for some 'technical' reason. And I agree with your assertion, and I made no mention of nor have any issue with any race, creed, religion, or ethnic group. These rioters have been shown to come in all shapes, sizes, colors, financial standing and class. The real rioters, vandals, looters, etc should face the harshest penalties provided by law, not given chance after chance.

And to be perfectly honest, any of the true, peaceful, protestors whose right to "peacefully protest" I would normally protect, allow their ranks to be infiltrated by wrong doers and bad actors with no attempt to separate them from their ranks are just as guilty of the atrocities.

It's the same principle as the Ford Co. being responsible for drunk drivers. The true peaceful protestors are not responsible for any of the carnage themselves as long as they are peacefully protesting/assembling, but once they allow the bad guys into their ranks without separating themselves, pointing out/identifying the bad guys, then they also bear some responsibility.

 

[jumpinjoe]

" ......................... If I'm to be put on the spot, after time as both a prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney I've seen a marked difference in the way black people and white people are treated in the legal system from beginning to end. I can also say I've seen a marked difference between the way poor people and people of any means are treated, so I'm not willing to say this is a strictly racial disparity but rather a power disparity. In any event, burning a sizable chunk of a city or destroying property is not justified. I'd say it's been ignored due to policy and politics, but it is neither just not legal. There should be consequences for rioters, looters, and arsonists. Those consequences should be in accordance with the law, though, and not meted out with a baton. (my emphasis)

This is quite confusing benstt .......... you seem to be adverse to treating black people without and white people with means differently, yet you then say they all should be treated the same in accordance with "law".

What that entails is for both a poor, maybe near illiterate, black man or poor white man to have to pay the same amount of bail $$$ for ... let's say some reasonably serious offense, as a very prominent white man but with means, with the same offense. Now I ask you is that just, or is it simply a legal technicality? Let's say bail is $5,000. Is that $5,000 having the same impact on both those people? Afterall it's the "law". Of course it's not having the same impact. It is 'legal', sure as hell not 'just'.

And BTW, I do believe that in some of these cases the baton is exactly what is needed. When LEO's are exposed to not only shootings and ambushes, but to rocks being thrown, fireworks being ignited and shot at them, frozen water bottles and even Molotov cocktails thrown at them, it needs to be answered and stopped as quickly as possible. This lack of a 'like response' is very indicative of how we see far more juvenile delinquency today than 20-30-40 yrs ago when corporal punishment in schools and sometimes even in homes was made illegal. Unfortunately there are some people in our society who have absolutely no respect nor concern for anyone or anything if there is no consequence to their actions.

And just for discussion sake ...... these atrocities "being ignored due to policy and politics" has to be based on a 'technicality'. We both know these offenses are against the law in any/every city in the country.

 

[Annihilator]

Ok, isn't this getting off the original topic of a lawsuit against a gun company........just saying....

 

[Pitdogg2]

And that is the goal. Keep the manufacturers tied up in court, keep their MONEY tied up in court, and eventually they'll go out of business.

Can't legislate them out of existence? Litigate them into the poorhouse, until they go bankrupt.

What a crock of

Sad but true. Once upon a time a senator from New York named Daniel Moynihan(sp?) said we don't have to ban firearms all we have to do is place an excise tax on ammunition to the tune of 30,000% on each round if nobody can afford it there will be no guns. Unfortunately now they're running with it and they're using the lawyers to make them too expensive think about it for a second some of these firearms we bought not too many years ago for less than $500. Now we can't touch them for less than $2,000 and that's partly because of the lawyer fees and the litigation and everything else that comes with a firearm factory.
Just SMDH

 

[HansGruber]

Sad but true. Once upon a time a senator from New York named Daniel Moynihan(sp?) said we don't have to ban firearms all we have to do is place an excise tax on ammunition to the tune of 30,000% on each round if nobody can afford it there will be no guns. unfortunately now they're running with it and they're using the lawyers to make them too expensive think about it for a second some of these firearms we bought not too many years ago for less than $500. Now we can't touch them for less than $2,000 and that's partly because of the lawyer fees and the litigation and everything else that comes with a firearm factory.
Just SMDH

Define “not too many years ago” and also adjust prices due to inflation...

 

[Pitdogg2]

Define “not too many years ago” and also adjust prices due to inflation...

I bought an HK94 late 80's iirc for 350.00 brand new, that was the going rate. I used to see rebuilt M1 garands for 125.00, not sloppy used up crap you mostly see at the gun shows for over 1000.00 that still need a rebuild (barrel). My point is most of the cost now is legal/litigation fees built into the cost of new firearms. Modern CNC has brought the cost down considerably but their legal fees just keep going up stratospherically.

 

[HansGruber]

I bought an HK94 late 80's iirc for 350.00 brand new, that was the going rate. I used to see rebuilt M1 garands for 125.00, not sloppy used up crap you mostly see at the gun shows for over 1000.00 that still need a rebuild (barrel). My point is most of the cost now is legal/litigation fees built into the cost of new firearms. Modern CNC has brought the cost down considerably but they legal fees just keep going up stratospherically.

HK94’s went crazy after they got banned in ‘89 by Bush 1...they quadrupled-quintupled over the next 10 years; I picked up my Cali DOC ‘94 in ‘05 or 06 for just under $2k...

Since HK doesn’t make a ‘94 anymore, I’d point out that a MKE license-built clone will run you LESS than I paid 14-15 years ago, so...bad example on your part. It's rarity that's driving up the prices in a real ‘94, nothing else. No different than an original Python, or 1st Gen SAA.

Look at a Glock; since 2000, a NIB Glock 17 has been pretty much the same (panic pricing not withstanding); you could buy one for $489 back then, and back in January or so, you could get a Gen5 for $519...and that comes with a third magazine, where you got 2 with the Gen3’s.

As for Garands? They went nuts after “Saving Private Ryan”—and again, rarity; not many places are making them.

And that’s not even adjusting for inflation...add that in, and NEW firearms are actually CHEAPER than they were back then.

So, yeah, I have no doubt that while there is SOME cost built in for litigation...it's not making firearms astronomical.

 

[Pitdogg2]

Sarco was bringing back M1's and M1 carbines from our lend lease program to other countries by the shipping container full. One of the past President's put the kibosh on that and many were melted down. IIRC there was a lawsuit over that fact. Yes we can still buy a few through CMP, once retired some firearms are to be sold to we the people.
Local gunsmith who I've known since birth has had many many containers from Sarco to rebuild arms and I've been privy to a few conversations helping him through the years.

I'm sorry for the derail carry on.

 

[wmg1299]

The amount of legal and logical gymnastic that the Court had to engage in to arrive at this conclusion is mind-boggling. I will be amazed if any higher court allows this ruling to stand.

 

[adam sr]

Note: The article author incorrectly mentions "clip" instead of "magazine", and Springfield "Arms" instead of "Armory".

Pennsylvania court strikes down law protecting gun manufacturers from lawsuits

A state appeals court in Pennsylvania declared the federal law that protects gun manufacturers from certain lawsuits unconstitutional on Monday in a victory for gun-control proponents that would allow the family of a 13-year-old boy who died in a 2016 shooting accident to move forward with a...

www.foxnews.com

That’s because they are ignorant. They have no idea what they are talking about so long as their bodyguards are armed with clips in their Springfield Arms firearms. Again, if I get into a wreck involving a drunk driver I should be able to sue said car company....it is their fault after all...
[/QUOTE]
Or the maker of the beer.

 

[adam sr]

That’s because they are ignorant. They have no idea what they are talking about so long as their bodyguards are armed with clips in their Springfield Arms firearms. Again, if I get into a wreck involving a drunk driver I should be able to sue said car company....it is their fault after all...

Or the maker of the beer.
[/QUOTE]
If somebody kills another person because the were on there cell phone while driving. Do they both get sued ( cell phone company / car company ) or just one. People need to start taking resonsibility for their own action.

 

[adam sr]

This accident happen around 10 miles from my house. My brother's step-daughter is friends with the girl that was babysitting the kids when this happen. I have heard so many different story about what happen. The boy ( the shooter) was trying to get the other boy to leave the house. Now why didn't the babysitter take the gun away. The only reason they are suing is for the money, it won't bring back their son.

 

[benstt]

This is quite confusing benstt .......... you seem to be adverse to treating black people without and white people with means differently, yet you then say they all should be treated the same in accordance with "law".

What that entails is for both a poor, maybe near illiterate, black man or poor white man to have to pay the same amount of bail $$$ for ... let's say some reasonably serious offense, as a very prominent white man but with means, with the same offense. Now I ask you is that just, or is it simply a legal technicality? Let's say bail is $5,000. Is that $5,000 having the same impact on both those people? Afterall it's the "law". Of course it's not having the same impact. It is 'legal', sure as hell not 'just'.

And BTW, I do believe that in some of these cases the baton is exactly what is needed. When LEO's are exposed to not only shootings and ambushes, but to rocks being thrown, fireworks being ignited and shot at them, frozen water bottles and even Molotov cocktails thrown at them, it needs to be answered and stopped as quickly as possible. This lack of a 'like response' is very indicative of how we see far more juvenile delinquency today than 20-30-40 yrs ago when corporal punishment in schools and sometimes even in homes was made illegal. Unfortunately there are some people in our society who have absolutely no respect nor concern for anyone or anything if there is no consequence to their actions.

And just for discussion sake ...... these atrocities "being ignored due to policy and politics" has to be based on a 'technicality'. We both know these offenses are against the law in any/every city in the country.

I'm not sure what state you're in or if or where you've worked in criminal law, but bail in the states in which I've practiced isn't set by law. There are a number of factors that go into deciding the amount, including wealth. I'll admit it's been a few years since I worked in criminal law so maybe it changed. That wasn't what I was referring to in my inequality statement, though. I was referring to the violence of the arrest, the weight of the charges brought, and the outcome of the case.

The legal consequences I refer to regarding rioters and looters are arrest and prosecution. I do hate cash bail, as it doesn't protect the public at all. If someone is going to run from prosecution they aren't going to be stopped by the court holding onto their cash.

 

[Talyn]

A firearm has never killed someone without someone's finger prints on it.

For someone & their lawyer(s) to sue a manufacturer when the firearm has been misused is just an exercise in greed, and some sort of political agenda.

My .02

 

[Keystone19250]

Ok, isn't this getting off the original topic of a lawsuit against a gun company........just saying....

Yes thank you.

 

[Keystone19250]

That’s because they are ignorant. They have no idea what they are talking about so long as their bodyguards are armed with clips in their Springfield Arms firearms. Again, if I get into a wreck involving a drunk driver I should be able to sue said car company....it is their fault after all...

Or the maker of the beer.
[/QUOTE]
Now you can sue who sold the person the liquor.

 

[benstt]

A firearm has never killed someone without someone's finger prints on it.

For someone & their lawyer(s) to sue a manufacturer when the firearm has been misused is just an exercise in greed, and some sort of political agenda.

My .02

Definitely.