House Passes Bill to Block Gun Lawsuits

[vicman]

House Passes Bill to Block Gun Lawsuits

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030410/ap_on_go_co/gun_lawsuits_8

By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The gun industry, which has fought repeated lawsuits accusing it of allowing weapons to fall into criminal hands, would get help from Congress with its legal troubles under legislation approved by the House.

The Republican-controlled House decided on a 285-140 vote to prohibit lawsuits from being brought against gun manufacturers and distributors for damages resulting from their product.

The legislation "would help prevent abuse of the legal system and help curb the growing problem of frivolous lawsuits in the United States," the White House said in a statement. "At the same time, the legislation would carefully preserve the right of individuals to have their day in court with civil liability actions."

Since 1998, at least 33 municipalities, counties and states have sued gun makers, with many alleging manufacturers allowed weapons to reach criminals because of lax distribution policies and irresponsible marketing. The NAACP is litigating a similar suit in New York now, contending that guns "led to disproportionate numbers of injuries, deaths and other damages" among minorities.

But House Republicans called those lawsuits frivolous and said those lawyers are trying to sue the U.S. gun industry out of existence.

"Those who are filing lawsuits against the firearm industry are doing so because they want to bankrupt the industry," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (news - web sites).

Republicans, gun manufacturers and gun advocates have argued that gun companies cannot be held responsible for the crimes of gun users.

Many House Democrats, however, said the GOP legislation banning suits against gun makers and dealers probably was unconstitutional and was politically motivated.

Nevertheless, 68 Democrats voted for the measure. Three Republicans opposed it.

"This body is considering this bill today because the National Rifle Association is holding their annual convention at the end of April, and the majority leadership in this chamber is compelled to prove to the pro-gun special interests that they will do whatever it takes," said Rep. James McGovern (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass.

Republicans denied they were trying to impress the NRA and accused Democrats of being against guns.

The NRA holds its annual meeting in Orlando, Fla., April 24-27. The association vehemently opposes additional gun controls or regulation of the firearms industry and contributes heavily to political candidates who share that view.

The bill has not yet been considered by the GOP-controlled Senate, but at least one senator, Democrat Dianne Feinstein of California, is already opposing it.

"This bill is simply the latest attempt of the gun lobby to evade industry accountability for its reckless conduct," she said.

The legislation would prohibit lawsuits from being brought against gun and ammunition manufacturers, distributors, dealers and importers for damages resulting from purported misuse of their product.

The bill would bar local governments from bringing cases against gun makers. Thirty-one states have passed legislation banning their cities and counties from filing similar lawsuits, supporters said.

Such suits by private individuals or groups also would be blocked by the federal legislation.

The pro-gun control Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, formerly Handgun Control, criticized the congressional action Thursday, saying the gun industry knowingly allows guns to be purchased by criminals.

"It's unconscionable that the United States Congress is moving rapidly towards granting wide-ranging immunity to an industry that knows how to stop arming our nation's most dangerous criminals, but refuses to change," said Michael Barnes, the center's president.

***********

again---> fucking conservatives

[vicman]

i guess they want to make it easier for criminals and terrorists to get their guns here.

[mrmatas2277]

last time i checked, a gun's purpose IS to kill people....

[mrmatas2277]

Originally posted by vicman

i guess they want to make it easier for criminals and terrorists to get their guns here.

i am all for stricter gun laws...but sueing a gun manf. cuz his gun killed someone? again, isnt that what is product is suppose to do?

[vicman]

same way suienig a clubowner because some gets fucked up in his establishment makes all that much more sense.

a guns purpose is to kill people, and shit, i know a lot of people have guns in their house for self defense or for sports purposes and that is allright, but if an establishment that sells guns and a gun manufacturer does not do the required background checks in a person who is trying to buy a gun, and that person uses it for criminal purposes, then by the same logic they should be held accountable.

--------------

Since 1998, at least 33 municipalities, counties and states have sued gun makers, with many alleging manufacturers allowed weapons to reach criminals because of lax distribution policies and irresponsible marketing. The NAACP is litigating a similar suit in New York now, contending that guns "led to disproportionate numbers of injuries, deaths and other damages" among minorities.

-----------------

[vicman]

of course not to mention how much $$$$ the NRA contributes to the republican party. here its called "lobbying" in other places its "bribery" same thing different name.

[mrmatas2277]

Originally posted by vicman

of course not to mention how much $$$$ the NRA contributes to the republican party. here its called "lobbying" in other places its "bribery" same thing different name.

BRO!!! PLEASE!!! ur right, but the left doesnt get any lobbying done?? thats not the point, its about sueing a manufacturer for making a product that does what ITS SUPPOSE TO DO...stricter gun laws is what is need in this country, not sueing Remington...the laws on guns fall on State/Federal govt'...not on the manufacturer...if a store is breaking the laws on mandatory waite periods, then they should be sued and dealt with...just my 2 pennies...

[jesseh49]

Originally posted by vicman

but if an establishment that sells guns and a gun manufacturer does not do the required background checks in a person who is trying to buy a gun, and that person uses it for criminal purposes, then by the same logic they should be held accountable.

-

But the gun manufacturers are not the ones doing background checks. They sell them to licensed gun dealers who are then responsible for doing the background check. In many states like NY your County, State and Federal agencys all do checks on the individual buying the gun. It is not up to the gunmaker they are just manufacturing the product.

Example Someone driving recklessly kills someone. Does the family have the right sue the automaker? No. (Lets also assume for arguments sake the car was checked out and it was not defective in anyway) The only person that can be sued is the person who was driving.

[£ddie]

Originally posted by jesseh49

Example Someone driving recklessly kills someone. Does the family have the right sue the automaker? No. (Lets also assume for arguments sake the car was checked out and it was not defective in anyway) The only person that can be sued is the person who was driving.

That's not what the cases against gun manufacturers are about. Plaintiffs and cities aren't claiming that they were directly responsible for deaths.

They ARE claiming that manufacturers should be held liable for breaching a duty to the public by marketing their products in such a way that it was reasonably foreseeable that the guns would end up in the hands of unauthorized users.

As an example, some cities cite the gun industry's failure to investigate the background of distributors and retail sellers of their firearms, as well as evidence that the gun industry saturated some markets in order to create illegal secondary markets.