Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:30 PM
cal04 (41,282 posts)
NRA-backed federal limits on gun lawsuits frustrate victims, their attorneys
A legal shield written by Congress to benefit the firearms industry is posing unexpected hurdles for parents in Newtown, Conn., and victims of other mass shootings, who want to use the courts to hold gun makers accountable and push them to adopt stricter safety standards.
The law, approved in 2005 after intense lobbying by the National Rifle Association, grants gun companies rare protection from the kind of liability suits that have targeted many other consumer product manufacturers.
Attorneys for victims of mass shootings, such as the massacre Dec. 14 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown and last summer’s rampage in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater, say they have been surprised by the legal constraints they would face in challenging the gun industry.
“It makes no logical sense. . . . If their wallets were threatened, they would have a greater interest in making firearms safer,” said Veronique Pozner, whose 6-year-old son, Noah, was one of the 20 children killed at Sandy Hook.
6 replies, 815 views
NRA-backed federal limits on gun lawsuits frustrate victims, their attorneys (Original post)
|Post removed||Feb 2013||#4|
Response to cal04 (Original post)
Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:54 PM
OneTenthofOnePercent (6,268 posts)
2. Hold gun makers liable for what.
Last edited Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:47 PM - Edit history (1)
They make a product. That product is sold and transferred ONLY to persons/businesses federally licensed and periodically audited by the ATF, and that that product appears to work as designed.
Firearms are designed to shoot bullets. You can make than as "safe" as you want... but how does a manufacturer make sure that subsequent owners of the firearms AFTER the initial transfer don't misuse a firearm?!?
I think any lawsuit, even without legislative protections, would *not* succeed.
edited to add *not*... oops.
Response to cal04 (Original post)
Sat Feb 2, 2013, 01:04 AM
krispos42 (47,470 posts)
6. And this is exactly why the law was written.
To prevent frivolous lawsuits like this.
Look, guns intended for self-defense use MUST WORK WHEN NEEDED. When a person pulls out a handgun or a shotgun or a rifle because he or she is being attacked, it must not fail to discharge when the victim pulls the trigger.
A cop finds himself suddenly attacked and swiftly draws his gun, aims, and squeezes the trigger. But the biometric system in his gun fails because he's wearing gloves, or his hands are really sweaty, or he has some ketchup from lunch on his palm. Or maybe he just doesn't have his palm in quite the right spot.
Gun fails to go off, and a cop gets beaten or shot or killed.
Nobody's really been able to figure the problem out so that a biometric gun is as reliable as a regular gun.
I kind of figured they'd use the system from the Remington Model 700 EtronX and try it out with the police or federal law enforcement first.
The cops or agents could still use their favorite cartridge and bullet combination, but the impact-sensitive primer would be replaced with an electrical-impulse-sensitive one. The system for running the electronics would be built into the gun, and maybe by using some sort of quick-read RFID chip in a bracelet or ring or maybe even implanted in their hands. When the officer pulled the "trigger" that activated the system, it would confirm the RFID number and send an electrical pulse to detonate the primer.