View Full Version : House Democrats propose opening gun makers to civil liability
Death by law suit..
Washington, DC – Today, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) introduced legislation, The Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act, to ensure that the victims of gun violence are allowed to have their day in court and that the gun industry – manufacturers, sellers and interest groups – is not shielded from liability when it acts with negligence and disregard for public safety.
http://schiff.house.gov/press-releases/rep-schiff-introduces-legislation-to-give-gun-victims-their-day-in-court/
Can't you still sue Big Tobacco if you're stupid enough to suck smoke into your lungs long enough to die? Stands to reason.
Maybe they should include the all politicians and anti-gun groups that enable the criminal/mentally disabled to perpetrate said violence to have Tort liability as well.
Go Devil
01-24-2013, 09:22
I think I hear a bit of Shakespeare "... Kill all the lawyers."
I think I hear a bit of Shakespeare "... Kill all the lawyers."
Unless you need one. :D
Can't you still sue Big Tobacco if you're stupid enough to suck smoke into your lungs long enough to die? Stands to reason.
I agree with the point you are getting across, in essence. Yes people know that smoking is bad for you, how can you not. From what I remember about all the lawsuits that came back and bit the cig manufacturers in the butt is that they were knowingly putting addictive components in the cigarettes so that they could, well get people addicted to them.
Maybe some of the lawyers on here can chime in on that one.
I don't think gun manufacturers (IMHO) would pass the same litmus test. How do you say a gun is an addicitive substance? But, on the other hand, anyone can sue anyone for jsut about anything these days, so who knows.
Bill Harsey
01-24-2013, 12:36
I agree with the point you are getting across, in essence. Yes people know that smoking is bad for you, how can you not. From what I remember about all the lawsuits that came back and bit the cig manufacturers in the butt is that they were knowingly putting addictive components in the cigarettes so that they could, well get people addicted to them.
Maybe some of the lawyers on here can chime in on that one.
I don't think gun manufacturers (IMHO) would pass the same litmus test. How do you say a gun is an addicitive substance? But, on the other hand, anyone can sue anyone for jsut about anything these days, so who knows.
The cigarette companies have to sell a lot of smokes to pay off those lawsuits.
From what I remember about all the lawsuits that came back and bit the cig manufacturers in the butt
She who would pun would pick a pocket. :D
You're exactly right, though-who knows?
Streck-Fu
01-24-2013, 13:29
May as well make it fair. Open every company and manufacturer to lawsuit for any misuse of their product.
Ford is now responsible for drunk driving accidents and texting while driving...
Peregrino
01-24-2013, 14:02
Says who? :confused:
Richard :munchin
It's a logical extension of the argument.
May as well make it fair. Open every company and manufacturer to lawsuit for any misuse of their product.
Ford is now responsible for drunk driving accidents and texting while driving...
Exactly...
If you kill someone with a knife the company gets sued, if you are convicted with vehicular homicide, etc etc etc...
So now we blame the pencil for misspelled words.
Ford is now responsible for drunk driving accidents and texting while driving...
Not true - however under a state like Florida's strict liability standard in product liability cases they may be liable for personal injuries incurred by people using their vehicles if the vehicles have mechanical defects which contributed to those injuries even if the defect(s) were not the cause of the accident. Whether or not this holds true is yet TBD as the suit is on-going...but the local office of Dewey, Dickum, and Howe are on the case for the plaintiff. ;)
Richard :munchin
So now we blame the pencil for misspelled words.
No. The Tree is the one at fault.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/23/man-who-shot-dogs-biting-boy-could-face-charges/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/23/man-who-shot-dogs-biting-boy-could-face-charges/
D.C. police are investigating whether a man will face criminal charges for shooting a pit bull that was attacking a child in his neighborhood.
The incident unfolded Sunday afternoon, after three pit bulls attacked an 11-year-old boy as he rode his bicycle through the Brightwood neighborhood of Northwest, according to a police report.
When the man, a neighbor, saw the boy being mauled by the dogs, he went inside his home and got a gun. The man killed one of the dogs. The gunfire attracted the attention of a police officer in the area near Eighth and Sheridan streets, where the attack occurred. The officer responded and shot the other two pit bulls as they continued to attack the boy.
The police report, which did not identify any of the people involved, said the boy suffered severe lacerations. The Washington Post, which first reported the details of the shooting, quoted the boy’s uncle as saying the boy was also shot in the foot.
Metropolitan Police Department spokeswoman Gwendolyn Crump said Wednesday that the entire case, including whether the man legally owned the gun he used to kill the dog, is under investigation.
While public opinion might be supportive of the man’s actions, he could still face significant charges depending on the outcome of the investigation, criminal defense attorney Daniel Gross said.
Snip
He is screwed in DC if it was not registered and had a permit.......... That is just how they roll in the district.
Old Dog New Trick
01-24-2013, 14:59
No good deed goes unpunished.
Should have just called 911 and watched the dogs eat the kid until the police showed up. After all that's what libs want the general population to do.
Jury nullification anyone?
No good deed goes unpunished.
Unless your a so-called journalist whose children go to the same school as the president.
Go Devil
01-24-2013, 17:36
Unless you need one. :D
I don't know why anyone would need one, if not being bothered by one.
Most matters in my lowly existence can be handled with my own actions and words.
Practicing law seems to be an industry that perpetuates it's own need by creating further laws.
I don't know why anyone would need one, if not being bothered by one.
Most matters in my lowly existence can be handled with my own actions and words.
Practicing law seems to be an industry that perpetuates it's own need by creating further laws.
The ABA has endorsed Feinsteins AWB.......should give James Sokolov a new venue for filing suit.
The ABA has endorsed Feinsteins AWB.......should give James Sokolov a new venue for filing suit.
Ha ha Sokolov...isn't he already everywhere? :D I haven't watched TV at 3:00 a.m. recently so I've probably missed Jimmy.
I don't know why anyone would need one, if not being bothered by one.
Most matters in my lowly existence can be handled with my own actions and words.
Practicing law seems to be an industry that perpetuates it's own need by creating further laws.
Big business needs 'em on a regular basis.
Some create, many (unfortunately) obfuscate...and a select few try to cut through the BS and really help others navigate the system. IME, there are good and bad like any profession. YMMV.
ZonieDiver
01-24-2013, 19:09
I don't know why anyone would need one, if not being bothered by one.
Most matters in my lowly existence can be handled with my own actions and words.
Practicing law seems to be an industry that perpetuates it's own need by creating further laws.
Really? You believe this? I hope the day never comes when you need an attorney.
I've got an SF friend, current attorney, and I've called on him more than once... and never regretted it. (He doesn't look like much anymore, but get him in a courtroom, and the SF is 'front and center'!)
With that line of thinking I say we sue our representatives for negligence. I mean they are the ones who got us in this mess and continue to do so. It's the same thing in my book. :)
At least we should be able to sue many of them for breach of contract. They all lied to get elected (made verbal contracts) and once elected let the country go to hell in a hand basket. Many of them didn't do 1/4 of what they promised/contracted to do.
Big business needs 'em on a regular basis.
Some create, many (unfortunately) obfuscate...and a select few try to cut through the BS and really help others navigate the system. IME, there are good and bad like any profession. YMMV.
Very, very true.
Umm, the Congressman's District. Now how did I guess that?
California’s 28th Congressional District
Stretching from West Hollywood to the eastern border of Pasadena, and from Echo Park to the Angeles National Forest, the 28th Congressional district features one of the most diverse constituencies and areas in the country, something that can only be found right in the heart of Los Angeles County.
PedOncoDoc
01-24-2013, 22:21
With that line of thinking I say we sue our representatives for negligence. I mean they are the ones who got us in this mess and continue to do so. It's the same thing in my book.
I was thinking more along the lines of, if I decide not to pay my Affordable Care Act tax (or other federal taxes), can the legislative branch (or PBO himself) be liable since he/they "made" the taxes? ;)
ddoering
01-25-2013, 08:43
Perhaps Congress should be held liable for the connsequences of some of their stupid laws.:munchin
Ret10Echo
01-25-2013, 08:50
Perhaps Congress should be held liable for the connsequences of some of their stupid laws.:munchin
HA!
No liability...no accountability...no problem.
When Joe Biden says "if we can save one child..." What say you now Joe?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/23/man-who-shot-dogs-biting-boy-could-face-charges/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/23/man-who-shot-dogs-biting-boy-could-face-charges/
D.C. police are investigating whether a man will face criminal charges for shooting a pit bull that was attacking a child in his neighborhood.
The incident unfolded Sunday afternoon, after three pit bulls attacked an 11-year-old boy as he rode his bicycle through the Brightwood neighborhood of Northwest, according to a police report.
When the man, a neighbor, saw the boy being mauled by the dogs, he went inside his home and got a gun. The man killed one of the dogs. The gunfire attracted the attention of a police officer in the area near Eighth and Sheridan streets, where the attack occurred. The officer responded and shot the other two pit bulls as they continued to attack the boy.
The police report, which did not identify any of the people involved, said the boy suffered severe lacerations. The Washington Post, which first reported the details of the shooting, quoted the boy’s uncle as saying the boy was also shot in the foot.
Metropolitan Police Department spokeswoman Gwendolyn Crump said Wednesday that the entire case, including whether the man legally owned the gun he used to kill the dog, is under investigation.
While public opinion might be supportive of the man’s actions, he could still face significant charges depending on the outcome of the investigation, criminal defense attorney Daniel Gross said.
Snip