Gun Control & RKBA

Deep13

(39,154 posts)

7. Define "frivolous"

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 03:30 PM

Dec 2012

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

40 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What about a class action lawsuit against the NRA modeled after the tobacco class actions? [View all] Toronto Dec 2012 OP

That would be extremely difficult for two reasons. Deep13 Dec 2012 #1

they have civil immunity from frivolous law suits bossy22 Dec 2012 #4

Define "frivolous" Deep13 Dec 2012 #7

meritless, like a SLAPP suit gejohnston Dec 2012 #10

One of the key points here are "user" bossy22 Dec 2012 #28

But the NRA are not manufacturers of weapons Toronto Dec 2012 #9

sorry, I reaized that later and made another post further down. nt Deep13 Dec 2012 #11

Plus, naaman fletcher Dec 2012 #27

why don't you try it with the NFA up there first gejohnston Dec 2012 #2

fuck the NRA. Shivering Jemmy Dec 2012 #5

didn't say anything nice about the NRA gejohnston Dec 2012 #6

Correction, thing will go both ways clffrdjk Dec 2012 #34

nothing I haven't said gejohnston Dec 2012 #35

By up there, do you mean Canada? Toronto Dec 2012 #13

technically maybe, realistically no. bossy22 Dec 2012 #3

Let's not... discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2012 #12

You wrote "NRA," but for some reason I thought you meant suing gun makers. Deep13 Dec 2012 #8

Actually I was thinking more along the lines Toronto Dec 2012 #14

but that isn't the case gejohnston Dec 2012 #17

In order to have never heard of the NRA Toronto Dec 2012 #19

who said anything about immagrants? gejohnston Dec 2012 #20

And this type of language (NRA website - response to Sandy Hook) doesn't make people paranoid? Toronto Dec 2012 #23

no less than false claims of gejohnston Dec 2012 #25

Speaking of moles... discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2012 #29

no I haven't, I'll have to check it out. gejohnston Dec 2012 #30

From 1987... discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2012 #31

I have several like comments. From the "other" side. Want to hear them? Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #38

I too remember the days when revolvers were more popular than semi-auto pistols. ... spin Dec 2012 #32

LOL I've been waiting for the "cool factor" clause in the laws forbidding aiding and abetting... cherokeeprogressive Dec 2012 #22

It wasn't a cool factor clause in a law Toronto Dec 2012 #24

Then maybe we could sue some .... oldhippie Dec 2012 #26

Suing the gunmakers would be the action to take but..... Gman Dec 2012 #15

For some reason Toronto Dec 2012 #16

not at all gejohnston Dec 2012 #18

Gun makers sell to gun dealers. krispos42 Dec 2012 #21

Correction Lurks Often Dec 2012 #33

There is a history of these SLAP suits before the legislation you reference. Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #39

Irv Pinsky hotlotus Dec 2012 #36

Pinsky's lawsuit is against the State of Connecticut... PoliticAverse Dec 2012 #37

Castle Rock v. Gonzales says that they will lose mwrguy Dec 2012 #40