Elephant Ears

This blog is dedicated to the political happenings in the Valley and Southwest Virginia. As the the name implies, this blog will have posts based on what is heard by this elephant's (GOPer's) ears. It is also a great treat to get while at the county fair or a carnival.

Thursday, October 20, 2005

Gun Lawsuit Shield

Congress passed a law today to prevent alot of the frivilous lawsuits against the gun industry. The link is here. Great bipartisan support and I have been hoping for this for a while now.
Great victory for the NRA and gun rights advocates everywhere.
Thanks to all the congresspeople who supported this (like my politically correct statement there?).

posted by GOPHokie @ 10:07 PM  

11 Comments:

  • At 10/21/2005 7:10 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Yes! some of us female posters do like 'political correctness' when it is used to point out that some member of congress are, in fact, women. And as a pro-second ammendment woman let me second the kudos given to Congress for passing this common sense law.

     

  • At 10/21/2005 9:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    There is nothing common-sense about it. There has not been a single gun lawsuit that has even made it to trial. The courts were handling this fine. WHy do we fix problems that don't exist while ignore problems that threaten our very country? The courts consistently handle cases without merit through dismissal, if a gun dealer sells a gun to someone that it should know not to then they deserve to be held accountable. I want immunity from my negligence, why does the NRA get it and I don't?

     

  • At 10/21/2005 9:11 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Anon- For the same reason that Florida just passed what is known as a 'Castle Doctrine'..i.e. your home is your castle and you can use force, including deadlyforce to protect yourself if somebody comes in uninvited. It's pretty much a pre-emptive strike so nobody is put in the position of defending themselves or another and then subjected to being prosecuted for doing so. Plenty of laws are passed to head off possible troubles.

     

  • At 10/21/2005 11:09 AM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    Exactly. Anon 10:03, no cigarette lawsuits made it to trila until the last few years. They too are ridiculous. Also, the point w/ gun lawsuits is not to win the lawsuit, its meant to send the gun companies money on lawyers to defend themselves. The idea is to bankrupt them through this way.
    Yes I know you don't believe it, but its a fact.

     

  • At 10/21/2005 11:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Also, there is a difference between a gun dealer and a manufacturer. Cigarette lawsuits are filed against Philip Morris, not against CVS or the 7-11. Besides, cigarette makers lied about their products, that is a proven fact. You've never seen a Smith and Wesson rep. say "Why you can surely take this .357 magnum and shoot somebody with it and they'll live." It's also been said about cigarettes that they are the only product that kill when used exactly as they should be.

     

  • At 10/21/2005 12:11 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    Your right, and you know that don't you?
    No one should be allowed to sue cigarette companies b/c everyone knows its bad for you.
    Personal Responsibility.
    You make a good point about the gun lawsuits, even though they are trying to sue everyone. Lawyers come after the manufacturers, dealers and probably even the wholesalers if they can.
    Lawsuits against them all need to be banned.

     

  • At 10/21/2005 2:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    you guys clearly don't understand the concept of negligence and products liability. The cig manufacturers were sued because they lied for years and said their product was not addictive and didn't cause cancer. The people who have successfully sued the companies won because they became addicted prior to the industry coming clean. Corporate responsibility means that if you lie you live with the consequences.

    Same goes for the manufacture and marketing of firearms. If you are a dealer in Md. buying multiple weapons from the same dealer and turning around and selling them in DC to gang members then the gang member who buys is legally responsible, the person selling to the member is responsible, and the gun shop is responsible if they should have known what was going on. It basic negligence.

    The threat of lawsuits and lawsuits have changed many industries for the better, including, tobacco, auto, children's clothing, fast food, the list goes on. America is made safer by these suits. If a company is doing nothing wrong they have nothing to fear

     

  • At 10/21/2005 5:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Right, 3:06...and Big Brother was just science fiction, right?

    What about that old concept of personal responsibility? What about the fact that law abiding citizens now have to jump through hoops to buy freaking SUDAFED because of criminals? It really is true that some customers buy Sudafed to treat allergies, not to cook up illegal meth.

    Simple economics dictate that where there is demand, there will be supply. This applies to criminals. Nobody from the NRA to the Brady Campaign leaders want criminals to have guns. So yes, it's true that if you sell/distribute guns illegally you should be held liable.

    But you know what else is true? The Washington Post recently reported on a judge whose 'clerical error' let a restraining order on a woman's abusive husband slip through the cracks. He then doused her with lighter fluid and set her on fire. Might things have been different if MD had normal CCW [concealed carry weapon] laws?

    Better judged by 12 then carried by six.

     

  • At 10/21/2005 6:05 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    Amen anon.
    3:06, the problem is not reasonable suits. Those are fine. The problem this day and time is that there are so many friviolous suits filed, that many companies are shelling out millions and millions for lawyers to get a suit dismissed. That costs all of us and it needs to be stopped.
    By the way, how do you prevent a dealer from selling guns (other than banning them). A dealer can't say "you look like a bad dude, I am not seeling to you".
    Then people like you will be crying racial profiling that a black person wasn't sold a gun.

     

  • At 10/22/2005 6:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Also, did anyone notice that the same week Congress also passed HR544, the "Responsibility in Food Consumption Act" which says you can't sue Wendy's or Taco Bell if you eat yourself into morbid obesity and get really sick as a result. This was exactly the same concept, except it got virtually no ink b/c it's not as sexy as gun stuff. And in this case, some tremendously fat kids did try to sue McDonalds b/c they broke 400 pounds and needed somebody to blame. The suit was tossed, but it did get brought. It is truly sad that Congress has to spend time writing and passing laws to disallow Americans abusing the system and blaming others for their stupidity.

    As far as gun dealers, there are measures in place such as waiting periods and background checks. It goes without saying that if somebody is a crimnal, they are not going to worry about whether or not they're buying the gun legally because criminals by definition don't obey laws.

    And this is another rant, but too many of those roadblocks are not even constitutional.

     

  • At 10/22/2005 11:28 AM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    Thanks for the point anon, that sounds like another good law that was passes.
    frivilous lawsuits will bring this country down if they aren't curtailed.
    I am proud of our bipartisan congress taking the intiative to correct this problem.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home