Mike the Usurper wrote:

No other American industry, no other branch of commerce would have this kind of special protection from civil law. Not drug makers, hospitals, doctors, farmers, or food processors. Not knife makers, car companies, tobacco companies, brewers, distillers or firecracker makers. Just the gun industry

And this morning, it passed.

I love guns. I have several. I plan to buy more. Noone will ever take them from me... AHAHA GUNS ARE AWESOME!

Mike the Usurper wrote:

No other American industry, no other branch of commerce would have this kind of special protection from civil law. Not drug makers, hospitals, doctors, farmers, or food processors. Not knife makers, car companies, tobacco companies, brewers, distillers or firecracker makers. Just the gun industry

And this morning, it passed.

If I buy a baseball bat from a sporting goods store and beat someone to death with it, can the victim's family sue the sporting goods store for civil liability? I don't think this law is the end of the world.

Decius wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:

No other American industry, no other branch of commerce would have this kind of special protection from civil law. Not drug makers, hospitals, doctors, farmers, or food processors. Not knife makers, car companies, tobacco companies, brewers, distillers or firecracker makers. Just the gun industry

And this morning, it passed.

If I buy a baseball bat from a sporting goods store and beat someone to death with it, can the victim's family sue the sporting goods store for civil liability? I don't think this law is the end of the world.

The reason this is notable is the the gun industry and NRA have been doing some extremely questionable things. For example, the rifle used by the DC snipers was stolen from a gun store in Washington State. That shop was not even aware the weapon was missing until it was traced back to them. Other cases include groups at gun shows doing things to circumvent the waiting period, or background checks entirely.

The law here doesn't just protect the manufacturers, but also the people who are doing things in that vein. By virtue of being a gun dealer, you are now immune to civil proceedings. Is it possible that they would still be criminally liable? Sure, they can go to jail, but they can't be sued for those things. Something in that idea is wrong.

Mike the Usurper wrote:
That shop was not even aware the weapon was missing until it was traced back to them. Other cases include groups at gun shows doing things to circumvent the waiting period, or background checks entirely.

Erm. The law bans "qualified civil liability action" but then goes on to say:

The term `qualified civil liability action' means a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief' resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include--

(i) an action brought against a transferor convicted under section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code, or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so convicted;

(ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;

(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, including--

(I) any case in which the manufacturer or seller knowingly made any false entry in, or failed to make appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under Federal or State law with respect to the qualified product, or aided, abetted, or conspired with any person in making any false or fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of a qualified product; or

(II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code;

(iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product;

(v) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or

(vi) and action or proceeding commenced by the Attorney General to enforce the provisions of chapter 44 of title 18 or chapter 53 of title 26, United States Code.

That seems to cover the examples you mention above. What do we want to sue them for that we are prohibited from suing them for? I don't really see a fire for the smoke here.

What I find entertaining, however, about this law, is that it says this:

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.

That is certainly not the dominate legal interpretation, and this very law goes on to place some new restrictions on armor peircing bullets, which would be unconstitutional were this true.