Executive Orders

[theiioftx]

Eye,

You're arguing the merits of the lawsuits. That's not my point at all, and frankly, it's not even HRC's point.

If you want to discuss the merits of the lawsuits, that's fine. However, I take off my POTUS hat and put on my state legislator or state supreme court justice hat to do that, because that's who should be making the decision.

If we're talking about cases in which someone murders another person with a gun that was legally purchased by the murderer, then no, there shouldn't be any lawsuit against the gun manufacturer or seller. To be honest, I don't know that anyone has called for that.

What fact scenarios make a lawsuit more justifiable? If the murderer was legally prohibited from having the gun, I think a lawsuit against the person or entity that provided it to him is perfectly fair. (That would be pretty analogous to negligent entrustment cases involving automobiles. If you loan your car to a person you know to be unlicensed or incompetent to drive (drunk, etc.), you can get sued.)

If some defect in the gun causes it to injure someone (explosion, firing without the trigger being pulled, perhaps even failure to fire when the trigger is pulled, etc.), I think a lawsuit against the manufacturer is fair game. That's a basic products liability cases - similar to a case against an auto manufacturer when a gas tank explodes upon a minor impact collision or a seat belt fails.

I do not disagree with anything you said, but I do believe HRC's position was to hold manufacturers responsible anytime there was a murder.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I do not disagree with anything you said, but I do believe HRC's position was to hold manufacturers responsible anytime there was a murder.

Really? I don't follow HRC but I'd like to see the quote you are translating that from. If she does, that's a pretty radical position. I haven't read any quotes from this years presidential candidates that are that radical.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I do not disagree with anything you said, but I do believe HRC's position was to hold manufacturers responsible anytime there was a murder.

Nobody knows what she'd actually do, but if you take her at her word (which admittedly is pretty worthless), that's not the case.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I also agree that a seller who sells a large number of guns to one person in a short time might be held liable but at the very least should notify authorities. Of course if that becomes practice then the buyer could just go to another seller.
Maybe there should be a limit on the number of guns any one person could buy within a specified time limit.

You might assume that I'm always OK with lawsuits, but I wouldn't support this. If the Second Amendment is supposed to empower the people to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, then law-abiding people should be able to own however many guns they want. Furthermore, I don't think the government (at least not the feds) has a right to know who owns a lot of guns, and I don't think gun manufactures or sellers should have a duty (whether by regulation or by tort liability) to tell them.

I think the only reason some want to sue mfgs is they have the money and the middle man buying and then selling to criminals doesn't have any. So charge and convict middlemen, whoever they are even parents.

It's a little bit like the Dram Shop Act case (suing the seller who gives the drunk his booze). As the lawyer, you have a duty to sue everybody you can build a case against, and yes, you're going to focus on the deep pockets, but it's going to be tough to make that work. Obviously, the shooter is going to be judgment proof 999/1000 times. The person who gave him the weapon may have some liability insurance, which helps. In most cases, getting at the gun manufacturer is going to be very tough.

You might get a multi-million dollar verdict, but there's a good chance, the jury will apportion 90 percent of the fault on the shooter and nominal amounts on the seller and manufacturer. Very tough to make this kind of case work.

 

[theiioftx]

Hopefully this link works. She said she wants to hold dealers and manufacturers liable for when someone uses their product negligently.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/note-hillary-clinton-tackle-gun-control/story?id=34254703

 

[zork]

so she is going to sue HP or Dell for using their servers illegally? Why isn't she getting treated at least as stringently as Gen Petraeus for showing classified material to her mistress?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Hopefully this link works. She said she wants to hold dealers and manufacturers liable for when someone uses their product negligently.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/note-hillary-clinton-tackle-gun-control/story?id=34254703

Take a look at the quote in question - "And it [Clinton's plan] will call for repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, in order to make sure dealers and manufacturers are held accountable for negligence when crimes are committed with products they've sold."

A few problems with that quote. First, those are ABC News' words, not HRC's. That's the news agency's characterization of her plan.

Second, it's false. Repealing PLCAA wouldn't "make sure" of anything. States would have to recognize the cause of action against the gun manufacturer. Though some likely would, most would not. In fact, many states (including Texas) already have a ban on such lawsuits.

Third, if the lawsuits are negligence actions, that goes against the claim that manufacturers would be getting sued for no reason other than making the gun someone happens to use in a criminal act. The plaintiff would have to prove that the gun manufacturer committed some act or omission that an ordinarily prudent gun manufacturer would not have committed and that such act or omission was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. You'd have to identify a specific screw-up on their part that would have to be supported by expert testimony.

Even if you can identify a specific screw-up, proving that the gun manufacturer's screw-up was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's harm when it's clear that the murderer himself was obviously the primary cause of the plaintiff's harm is going to be very tough. Let's put it this way. I think I'm reasonably good in the courtroom, and unless I had some very, very favorable facts on my side (like if I had documented proof that the manufacturer knowingly sold the gun to a convicted felon), I don't think I could pull it off.

 

[zork]

Take a look at the quote in question - "And it [Clinton's plan] will call for repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, in order to make sure dealers and manufacturers are held accountable for negligence when crimes are committed with products they've sold."

A few problems with that quote. First, those are ABC News' words, not HRC's. That's the news agency's characterization of her plan.

Second, it's false. Repealing PLCAA wouldn't "make sure" of anything. States would have to recognize the cause of action against the gun manufacturer. Though some likely would, most would not. In fact, many states (including Texas) already have a ban on such lawsuits.

Third, if the lawsuits are negligence actions, that goes against the claim that manufacturers would be getting sued for no reason other than making the gun someone happens to use in a criminal act. The plaintiff would have to prove that the gun manufacturer committed some act or omission that an ordinarily prudent gun manufacturer would not have committed and that such act or omission was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. You'd have to identify a specific screw-up on their part that would have to be supported by expert testimony.

Even if you can identify a specific screw-up, proving that the gun manufacturer's screw-up was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's harm when it's clear that the murderer himself was obviously the primary cause of the plaintiff's harm is going to be very tough. Let's put it this way. I think I'm reasonably good in the courtroom, and unless I had some very, very favorable facts on my side (like if I had documented proof that the manufacturer knowingly sold the gun to a convicted felon), I don't think I could pull it off.

So in Texas, Hillary would be to blame for the Classified documents being on her private, non-secure server, not HP or Dell?

 

[theiioftx]

Take a look at the quote in question - "And it [Clinton's plan] will call for repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, in order to make sure dealers and manufacturers are held accountable for negligence when crimes are committed with products they've sold."

A few problems with that quote. First, those are ABC News' words, not HRC's. That's the news agency's characterization of her plan.

Second, it's false. Repealing PLCAA wouldn't "make sure" of anything. States would have to recognize the cause of action against the gun manufacturer. Though some likely would, most would not. In fact, many states (including Texas) already have a ban on such lawsuits.

Third, if the lawsuits are negligence actions, that goes against the claim that manufacturers would be getting sued for no reason other than making the gun someone happens to use in a criminal act. The plaintiff would have to prove that the gun manufacturer committed some act or omission that an ordinarily prudent gun manufacturer would not have committed and that such act or omission was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. You'd have to identify a specific screw-up on their part that would have to be supported by expert testimony.

Even if you can identify a specific screw-up, proving that the gun manufacturer's screw-up was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's harm when it's clear that the murderer himself was obviously the primary cause of the plaintiff's harm is going to be very tough. Let's put it this way. I think I'm reasonably good in the courtroom, and unless I had some very, very favorable facts on my side (like if I had documented proof that the manufacturer knowingly sold the gun to a convicted felon), I don't think I could pull it off.

Thanks for your view and I always appreciate your legal interpretation. However, I did hear her speech and she did state she would go after manufacturers and sellers to stop gun violence.

It is kind of like a huge tax on bullets. She could care less how she gets the desired effect of full gun control.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

That's like making Toyota liable when a drunk gets in their Camry and kills an innocent family by driving on the wrong side of the highway .

Since the discussion involves using guns as a means of deliberately committing a crime (as opposed to accidentally killing people), I'd say it's more on the line of suing Toyota every time someone uses their car to escape a crime scene. Or to run someone over, obviously...

 

[Mr. Deez]

Thanks for your view and I always appreciate your legal interpretation. However, I did hear her speech and she did state she would go after manufacturers and sellers to stop gun violence.

It is kind of like a huge tax on bullets. She could care less how she gets the desired effect of full gun control.

And I think that's part of the problem I (and many others) have with HRC beyond just her liberalism. I'm trying to look at what she claims to want to do from a literal standpoint and within the constraints of the Constitution and laws. However, she has made it clear (based on her past behavior) that she thinks nothing of circumventing and ignoring the laws and and normal procedures that govern the country and its people. That makes it very hard to defend her or give her the benefit of the doubt. Trust me. Giving her any kind of defense is like chewing on sand. Believe it or not, it's easier to defend Obama than it is to defend HRC.