HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » What about a class action...

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:07 PM

 

What about a class action lawsuit against the NRA modeled after the tobacco class actions?

Any lawyers out there? Could the NRA be sued for encouraging gun purchases that resulted in the deaths of thousands or millions?

40 replies, 3943 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 40 replies Author Time Post
Reply What about a class action lawsuit against the NRA modeled after the tobacco class actions? (Original post)
Toronto Dec 2012 OP
Deep13 Dec 2012 #1
bossy22 Dec 2012 #4
Deep13 Dec 2012 #7
gejohnston Dec 2012 #10
bossy22 Dec 2012 #28
Toronto Dec 2012 #9
Deep13 Dec 2012 #11
naaman fletcher Dec 2012 #27
gejohnston Dec 2012 #2
Shivering Jemmy Dec 2012 #5
gejohnston Dec 2012 #6
clffrdjk Dec 2012 #34
gejohnston Dec 2012 #35
Toronto Dec 2012 #13
bossy22 Dec 2012 #3
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2012 #12
Deep13 Dec 2012 #8
Toronto Dec 2012 #14
gejohnston Dec 2012 #17
Toronto Dec 2012 #19
gejohnston Dec 2012 #20
Toronto Dec 2012 #23
gejohnston Dec 2012 #25
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2012 #29
gejohnston Dec 2012 #30
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2012 #31
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #38
spin Dec 2012 #32
cherokeeprogressive Dec 2012 #22
Toronto Dec 2012 #24
oldhippie Dec 2012 #26
Gman Dec 2012 #15
Toronto Dec 2012 #16
gejohnston Dec 2012 #18
krispos42 Dec 2012 #21
Lurks Often Dec 2012 #33
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #39
hotlotus Dec 2012 #36
PoliticAverse Dec 2012 #37
mwrguy Dec 2012 #40

Response to Toronto (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:11 PM

1. That would be extremely difficult for two reasons.

First, there is a Federal law that specifically exempts gun makers from civil immunity for making a dangerous product.

Second, the class action succeeded because the states proved that cigarette makers were actively concealing how dangerous their products are. In the case of guns, everyone pretty much knows how dangerous they are. If fact, people often buy them specifically for that reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:14 PM

4. they have civil immunity from frivolous law suits

you can still sue a gun manufacturerer if a gun is defected and you get hurt.

Essentially it would be like preventing lawsuits on Jack Daniels Distillary company due to drunk driving accidents

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:30 PM

7. Define "frivolous"

If they had a chance of succeeding then they would not be frivolous. Introducing an unreasonably dangerous product into the market is grounds for a lawsuit. "Unreasonably dangerous" means more dangerous than the average user would suspect. If the marketing of guns is that they protect your family from crime, and the evidence shows they are actually an affirmative danger (if), then it would be unreasonably dangerous. A lot depends on the local jury pool and of course these cases cost a lot to litigate, even if the defendant wins.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:37 PM

10. meritless, like a SLAPP suit

which is what the Brady suits were based on. It wasn't about winning or going to trial. The idea was to bankrupt them by getting them to have to hire extra lawyers and maybe get them to settle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:27 PM

28. One of the key points here are "user"

I think we confused "owner/user/victim" too much in the discussion of this topic. The user is the person who actually uses the said device- and in that case todays guns are extremely safe (you don't see many guns blowing up on their users). If it is more likely that keeping a gun inyour house will be used against you- that is not a product of a defect in the gun.

Guns are not unreasonably dangerous to use- no more than using a vaccuum cleaner or many other household items.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:34 PM

9. But the NRA are not manufacturers of weapons

 

only paid advocates. I don't expect that they enjoy tort immunity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Reply #9)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:42 PM

11. sorry, I reaized that later and made another post further down. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:04 PM

27. Plus,

 

the NRA doesn't manufacture guns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:12 PM

2. why don't you try it with the NFA up there first

and let us know how it goes? How about wrongful death suits against the Brady Campaign or VPC for every home invasion resulting in death in areas with strict gun laws like DC, Chicago, USVI? How about suing head shops for drug gang violence like drive by shootings? In fact, I think Mexican citizens should be able to sue the US and Canadian drug culture for fueling their violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:16 PM

5. fuck the NRA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shivering Jemmy (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:23 PM

6. didn't say anything nice about the NRA

just saying things should go both ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:42 PM

34. Correction, thing will go both ways

Don't open doors or use arguments that can be used against you later because they will be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clffrdjk (Reply #34)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:33 PM

35. nothing I haven't said

several times before

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:46 PM

13. By up there, do you mean Canada?

 

The NFA has very little influence in Canada. Not many even know they exist. The majority of our gun owners are hunters who were once outraged that we had a long gun registry, and that was primarily because they either believed the government would one day confiscate their rifles or alternatively because they felt they might be mistakenly accused of a crime, if there was a gun death in their area. We abolished the registry. We have a rather low rate of gun deaths by rifles - yes some accidental, some alcohol related, some suicides, but most of our gun crime comes from weapons smuggled in from the US and sold to the criminal element. It's not particularly easy here to obtain a handgun and most people don't want one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:12 PM

3. technically maybe, realistically no.

Advocating for loose gun laws does not make you an accessory to murder under the law. Under that theory someone could sue the ACLU for any crimes that were committed by individuals who "got off" due to civil right violations during the arrest process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:43 PM

12. Let's not...

...confuse civil liability with criminal culpability. Individuals and corps have been sued (justifiably) for such things as providing an "attractive nuisance". This is where many lawsuits over deaths and injuries in unsecured and under-secured pools originate. I'm purely guessing but I think such an action would probably based in similar types of precedents. The manufacture's advertising or perhaps monetary cooperation in maybe a movie or video game may lead to some success with such a suit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:32 PM

8. You wrote "NRA," but for some reason I thought you meant suing gun makers.

Unless the NRA actively incited violence or violated our now nearly nonexistent campaign laws, they are protected by the 1st Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:51 PM

14. Actually I was thinking more along the lines

 

of aiding and abetting crime by increasing the cool factor of weapons and/or using high powered marketing strategies to make people more paranoid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:57 PM

17. but that isn't the case

because our crime problem are mostly by people who may or may not know the NRA exists, or that guns are even legal for the average person.
Paranoid? Are you saying self defense is a bad thing, or what's your point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 03:16 PM

19. In order to have never heard of the NRA

 

you'd have to be living under a rock. The NRA is known world wide, thanks to the American media. Ditto re the legality of guns - if you have gone to school in the US, you know about the 2nd amendment. Immigrants have to learn about US law and history to become citizens, and the illegal immigrants watch television. Your crime problem, like most crime problems anywhere involves socio-economic disparity.

What I mean by paranoia is the idea that you're better protected with multiple weapons than you are with one, or that a six shooter is not enough, you need a semi-auto handgun or semi-auto rifle to really be protected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Reply #19)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 03:23 PM

20. who said anything about immagrants?

Your crime problem, like most crime problems anywhere involves socio-economic disparity.
That is correct, and we have on the same level as Mexico. I might be underestimating the civics education of the average drug dealer or gangster, but I doubt by much.

What I mean by paranoia is the idea that you're better protected with multiple weapons than you are with one, or that a six shooter is not enough, you need a semi-auto handgun or semi-auto rifle to really be protected.
You are projecting and making false assumptions. FWIW, the popularity of semi auto pistols in the US is fairly recent. I remember when semi autos were more Canadian and European while revolvers were US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #20)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 04:11 PM

23. And this type of language (NRA website - response to Sandy Hook) doesn't make people paranoid?

 

"The truth is that our society is populated by an unknown number ofgenuine monsters people so deranged, so evil, so possessed byvoices and driven by demons that no sane person can possibly evercomprehend them. They walk among us every day. And does anybodyreally believe that the next Adam Lanza isn't planning his attack on aschool he's already identified at this very moment?

How many more copycats are waiting in the wings for their moment offame from a national media machine that rewards them with thewall-to-wall attention and sense of identity that they crave whileprovoking others to try to make their mark?

A dozen more killers? A hundred? More? How can we possibly evenguess how many, given our nation's refusal to create an activenational database of the mentally ill?

And the fact is, that wouldn't even begin to address the much largerand more lethal criminal class: Killers, robbers, rapists and drug gangmembers who have spread like cancer in every community in thiscountry. Meanwhile, federal gun prosecutions have decreased by 40% to the lowest levels in a decade.

So now, due to a declining willingness to prosecute dangerouscriminals, violent crime is increasing again for the first time in19 years! Add another hurricane, terrorist attack or some other naturalor man-made disaster, and you've got a recipe for a nationalnightmare of violence and victimization."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Reply #23)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 04:30 PM

25. no less than false claims of

escalating gun violence and "be afraid of the deer hunting redneck down the street" and no less either. Since Wayne has a habit of doing his cause more harm than good, I sometimes wonder if he, and Ted Nugent, are really moles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #25)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:05 PM

29. Speaking of moles...

...have you ever seen the Kevin Costner movie No Way Out? I love movies with a twist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #29)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:06 PM

30. no I haven't, I'll have to check it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #30)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:13 PM

31. From 1987...

...so it's a bit of an oldie. Hackman is almost always good plus I'm a Will Patton fan. He's a character.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Reply #23)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 01:01 PM

38. I have several like comments. From the "other" side. Want to hear them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #20)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:15 PM

32. I too remember the days when revolvers were more popular than semi-auto pistols. ...

I still like "wheel guns" but in recent years I have found that the technology involved in the manufacture of semi-auto pistols has improved considerably and they now are far more reliable than they were 20 years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 03:35 PM

22. LOL I've been waiting for the "cool factor" clause in the laws forbidding aiding and abetting...

Keep workin' for it... we'll get it soon!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #22)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 04:26 PM

24. It wasn't a cool factor clause in a law

 

it was referring to a lawsuit vs the NRA for making gun ownership more attractive by extorting the virtues of high powered weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 04:54 PM

26. Then maybe we could sue some ....

 

... filmmakers, TV producers, novelists and video game producers for the same thing? After all, it seems to be speech that you are objecting to. Cool factor? Marketing strategies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:54 PM

15. Suing the gunmakers would be the action to take but.....

I think (I'm not sure) they've been exempted from such lawsuits through legislation. Correct me please if I'm wrong on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:57 PM

16. For some reason

 

gun makers enjoy tort immunity in the US, probably because of the 2nd Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 03:02 PM

18. not at all

It has to do with the gun control lobby using meritless lawsuits, based on SLAPP suits, to sue them in oblivion. Basically, they sued them for the illegal actions of others. A perfect analogy would be
suing car makers and dealers for hit an runs
suing bars and distilleries for drunk drivers

law suites are legal if the manufacture or dealer violated the law. There was a successful lawsuit against Kahr because of security lapses and hired a felon on the assembly line. In the US all felons are are not allowed to touch a gun for life. That includes non violent felons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 03:33 PM

21. Gun makers sell to gun dealers.

Gun dealers sell to the general public. The gun makers therefore have no responsibility if a member of the general public decides to commit murder because they have no control over who gets the guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:33 PM

33. Correction

Generally Gun makers sell to Gun Distributors/Wholesalers who sell to Gun Stores who sell to civilians and police departments.

In the greater scheme of things, not particularly important, but in a court room it will make a difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 01:06 PM

39. There is a history of these SLAP suits before the legislation you reference.

The courts shit-canned them, one and all under then-existing laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Original post)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 03:45 AM

36. Irv Pinsky

Irv Pinsky's lawsuit was allowed to be filed. All the families of victims should file lawsuits against NRA because the guns used in Sandy Hook were legal. There is ample evidence in past political ads, news programs showing the NRA's relentless promotion of removing the ban and/or maintaining the legalization of the assault rifles. There is a money trail of contributions to candidates who voted to keep these weapons legal There is evidence to show the gun manufacturers also influenced laws and lawmakers with contributions directly and to the NRA. The lawsuits should focus on this. The parents should request a jury trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #37)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 04:14 PM

40. Castle Rock v. Gonzales says that they will lose

'The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread