California Gov. Gavin Newsom Signs Law Allowing Victims To Sue Gun Makers

[Libertas]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/13/us/calif ... index.html


Sue them all into bankruptcy.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law Tuesday that clears the path for gun violence victims to file civil suits against the companies that manufacture the firearms used in crimes.

The move effectively tightens gun laws in California, which has the strictest gun safety measures in the nation, according to the Giffords Law Center.

“To the victims of gun violence and their families: California stands with you. The gun industry can no longer hide from the devastating harm their products cause,” Newsom said in a news release.

[Glennfs]

How about car makers should we be able to sue them too? Or alchohol companies? This is just another reason why people with common sense generally do not vote for Democrats.

[Motor City]

How about car makers should we be able to sue them too? Or alchohol companies? This is just another reason why people with common sense generally do not vote for Democrats.

Definitely

2021 Ford Bronco 'catastrophic engine failure' complaints lead to NHTSA investigation

Goodyear knew of defective RV tires as early as 2002, feds say

021 Ford Expedition, Lincoln Navigator customers sue over unfixed fire risk

oops forgot one

US has over 750 complaints of Teslas braking for no reason

[carmenjonze]

How about

whuddubboutt…

[Ted]

Definitely

2021 Ford Bronco 'catastrophic engine failure' complaints lead to NHTSA investigation

Goodyear knew of defective RV tires as early as 2002, feds say

021 Ford Expedition, Lincoln Navigator customers sue over unfixed fire risk

oops forgot one

US has over 750 complaints of Teslas braking for no reason

I believe gun manufacturers could be sued in any of the instances above. Federal law allows a lawsuit against a gun manufacturer to move forward if their products are defective.

[Bludogdem]

Federal law protects gun manufacturers from liability. Both in federal and state courts.

[Libertas]

The fact that ANY adult still insists on weapons like AK47 to be available to the general public, is absurd and childish.

Tell me my Xbox or PS causes death, cancer or something, and I willingly give up my toy.

[ProfX]

Gun manufacturers are not protected from all liability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectio ... n_Arms_Act

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a U.S law, passed in 2005, that protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. Both arms manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.

[snip][end]

Bernie Sanders voted for this bill.

Nuff said.

[Libertas]

REEDICULOUS law, just goes to show ya what campaign finance dollars can do.

Referring to the law that exempts the merchants of death.

Name any other product manufactured for the PURPOSE of killing a human being...other than weapons built for military which at least for now are not allowed. For now.

[Ted]

Gun manufacturers are not protected from all liability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectio ... n_Arms_Act

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a U.S law, passed in 2005, that protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. Both arms manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.

[snip][end]

Bernie Sanders voted for this bill.

Nuff said.

A Bernie Sanders quote from your link:

++++++++++
Bernie Sanders, who as a congressman voted for the law in 2005, defended the law in October 2015, saying: "If somebody has a gun and it falls into the hands of a murderer and the murderer kills somebody with a gun, do you hold the gun manufacturer responsible? Not any more than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer."[52][53] He changed his position somewhat in January 2016, saying that he would favor a partial repeal of the law.
++++++++++

His logic is solid.

Also voting for the bill - roughly one out of every three Democrats.

[carmenjonze]

... people with common sense ...

Euphemism for whites-rule.

Hey, how do you pro-rape/pro-incest antiaborts feel about laws like Texas's and Missouri's, which allow any random a-hole to sue somebody who gets an abortion or provides one in another state?

[carmenjonze]

A Bernie Sanders quote from your link:

++++++++++
Bernie Sanders, who as a congressman voted for the law in 2005, defended the law in October 2015, saying: "If somebody has a gun and it falls into the hands of a murderer and the murderer kills somebody with a gun, do you hold the gun manufacturer responsible? Not any more than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer."[52][53] He changed his position somewhat in January 2016, saying that he would favor a partial repeal of the law.
++++++++++

His logic is solid.

Also voting for the bill - roughly one out of every three Democrats.

Do you think any random citizen should be able to sue abortion providers and seekers in either their own state or another state?

[ProfX]

He changed his position somewhat in January 2016, saying that he would favor a partial repeal of the law.

If his logic was solid, well, re-consideration of his logic led to him supporting its repeal in 2016.

https://archive.thinkprogress.org/berni ... f99d381fd/

Sanders said that he will co-sponsor legislation to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a law passed by Congress in 2005 that shields gun manufacturers from liability in lawsuits over gun violence. Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, praised Sanders’ decision, calling it a clear victory for gun control advocates which would have been “unthinkable a month ago.”

[snip][end]

[from the wiki above]
A 2007 report in the American Journal of Public Health states that the PLCAA is potentially dangerous to the public health because it removes both regulation and litigation as incentives for firearm companies to make their products safer.

[snip]

The leading exponent of this theory was the Fourth Circuit panel in United States v. Chafin, which stated there is nothing "that remotely suggests that, at the time of its ratification, the Second Amendment was understood to protect an individual’s right to sell a firearm." The Chafin holding is not binding precedent, since the decision was unpublished. Nevertheless, a federal district court in West Virginia adopted and followed Chafin’s rule. Likewise, in Montana Shooting Sports Association v. Holder, a federal district court stated (albeit in dicta), "Heller said nothing about extending Second Amendment protection to firearm manufacturers or dealers. If anything, Heller recognized that firearms manufacturers and dealers are properly subject to regulation.

[snip][end]

I personally agree firearms makers should not be sued for crimes committed with their guns, anymore than I believe the Honda Motor Corp. should be sued if my neighbor runs over his wife with a Honda. I get that.

Question extends to further matters, though, like what if Honda, for example, was providing its cars with certain illegal modifications that help facilitate their criminal usage.

I personally don't think the 2nd amendment protects firearms manufacturers in any way, even if the NRA has essentially become their industry lobby, sometimes siding with them against gun owners.

[Libertas]

If his logic was solid, well, re-consideration of his logic led to him supporting its repeal in 2016.

https://archive.thinkprogress.org/berni ... f99d381fd/

Sanders said that he will co-sponsor legislation to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a law passed by Congress in 2005 that shields gun manufacturers from liability in lawsuits over gun violence. Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, praised Sanders’ decision, calling it a clear victory for gun control advocates which would have been “unthinkable a month ago.”

[snip][end]

If we could sue, boy would I love 2b an attorney.

[Ted]

If his logic was solid, well, re-consideration of his logic led to him supporting its repeal in 2016.

https://archive.thinkprogress.org/berni ... f99d381fd/

Sanders said that he will co-sponsor legislation to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a law passed by Congress in 2005 that shields gun manufacturers from liability in lawsuits over gun violence. Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, praised Sanders’ decision, calling it a clear victory for gun control advocates which would have been “unthinkable a month ago.”

[snip][end]

[from the wiki above]
A 2007 report in the American Journal of Public Health states that the PLCAA is potentially dangerous to the public health because it removes both regulation and litigation as incentives for firearm companies to make their products safer.

[snip]

The leading exponent of this theory was the Fourth Circuit panel in United States v. Chafin, which stated there is nothing "that remotely suggests that, at the time of its ratification, the Second Amendment was understood to protect an individual’s right to sell a firearm." The Chafin holding is not binding precedent, since the decision was unpublished. Nevertheless, a federal district court in West Virginia adopted and followed Chafin’s rule. Likewise, in Montana Shooting Sports Association v. Holder, a federal district court stated (albeit in dicta), "Heller said nothing about extending Second Amendment protection to firearm manufacturers or dealers. If anything, Heller recognized that firearms manufacturers and dealers are properly subject to regulation.

[snip][end]

I personally agree firearms makers should not be sued for crimes committed with their guns, anymore than I believe the Honda Motor Corp. should be sued if my neighbor runs over his wife with a Honda. I get that.

Question extends to further matters, though, like what if Honda, for example, was providing its cars with certain illegal modifications that help facilitate their criminal usage.

I personally don't think the 2nd amendment protects firearms manufacturers in any way, even if the NRA has essentially become their industry lobby, sometimes siding with them against gun owners.

I believe Bernie's logic on gun issues was sound then and is sound now.

++++++++++++
https://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-gun-policy/

Gun Control: Gun control legislation should ultimately fall on individual states, with the exception of a federal ban on assault weapons and instant background checks to prevent firearms from finding their way into the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

Manufacturer Liability: Gun manufacturers should not be held liable for the misuse of their products, just as any other industry isn’t held accountable for how end-consumers use their products.
++++++++++++

Governor Newsom appears to be setting up a legal challenge to the PLCAA. While I disagree with his stance, I respect his action as an elected official and will follow this with interest as it goes through the legal process.

[Ted]

Do you think any random citizen should be able to sue abortion providers and seekers in either their own state or another state?

No.

[carmenjonze]

No.

You’re aware that conservatives are imposing these conditions on citizens in at least 3 states, yes? Does it bother you?

[ProfX]

I too support what Bernie's stance has been - since 2016.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ev ... to-correct

Over the past several months, Sanders has repeatedly said he'd revisit his 2005 vote for the PLCAA, which protects gun manufacturers from most lawsuits designed to hold them liable for gun deaths. Clinton's campaign has said that the 2005 vote shows Sanders is too close to the gun-rights crowd for a Democratic primary.

Sanders has said his votes on gun control legislation differ from many progressives because he hails from Vermont, a state wary of regulations on firearms. He backs an assault weapons ban and touts his low rating from the NRA when saying there is no real distance between him and President Obama on guns.

The 2005 PLCAA vote, Sanders said, was cast over concerns that small business gun stores would be driven out of business by lawsuits. His support for the repeal bill comes with a demand: that an amendment be added to monitor how repeal affects what his proposed text describes as "rural mom and pop hunting stores."

"I’m pleased to support the legislation and should it come up for consideration I would work to make sure it includes a provision that allows us to monitor its impact so that we may determine if it is having any unintended consequences," Sanders said in a statement.

[snip][end]

I also am in favor of repealing PLCAA, even if we include Bernie's amendment.

Mom and pop hunting stores in rural VT are not the problem.

Scumbag gun manufacturers and dealers in big cities are the problem.

While I agree manufacturers should not be held liable for misuse of their product, there are issues over:
a) are their proper safety features to protect against misuse (not only criminal, also accidental, like a 7 year old shooting his brother in the face)
b) is the product in question practically guaranteeing criminal use in the way it is designed (i.e. Saturday Night specials) & marketed
c) are the gun dealers facilitating them winding up in criminal hands through not stopping straw purchases, etc.

[Ted]

You’re aware that conservatives are imposing these conditions on citizens in at least 3 states, yes? Does it bother you?

Yes.

Yes.

[ProfX]

Here's the key.

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/07/12/new-c ... nger-hide/

AB 1594 utilizes an exemption to the federal statute that allows gun makers or sellers to be sued for violations of state laws concerning the sale or marketing of firearms.

[snip][end]

Forsooth! Of what doth the fair Guv of CA speak?

https://www.thetrace.org/2020/01/gun-in ... ity-plcaa/

Last November, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a lawsuit brought by the families of Sandy Hook victims against Remington Arms, the manufacturer of the rifle used in the school shooting. The move allows the case to proceed to trial. A week later, the Indiana Supreme Court followed the high court’s cue, permitting a suit filed by the city of Gary against the 10 largest handgun manufacturers in America to move forward.

[snip]

The Sandy Hook and Gary decisions, however, suggest there is a crack in PLCAA’s seemingly solid veneer. What’s different about these cases? And what might they mean for the industry’s legal immunity?

[snip]

What is uncommon about PLCAA, however, is that it provides blanket immunity to an industry, as opposed to some specific industry conduct. Never before had Congress granted a single industry such extensive legal protection — nor has it done so since. The tobacco, automotive, and pharmaceutical industries, for example, have all faced lawsuits alleging that their products caused irreparable harm to the general public. In each instance, legal battles have triggered significant industry-wide changes.

[snip]

PLCAA has a specific, if narrow, exception. Unlawful conduct by the industry itself is not protected, meaning if a gun manufacturer, distributor, or dealer breaks the law, it can be sued.

The text of the law says that legal immunity will not apply to any action in which a manufacturer or seller knowingly break laws that regulate the marketing or sale of their products.

[snip]

Yes. In the Sandy Hook case, the plaintiffs allege that Remington violated Connecticut’s unfair trade practices law — that it “knowingly marketed and promoted the Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle for use in assaults against human beings,” and thus encouraged the boy who would eventually open fire at the elementary school, per court documents in the case.

In Indiana, the plaintiffs allege that the gun manufacturers violated the state’s public nuisance law. This means that the city of Gary is alleging that the handgun manufacturers named as defendants irresponsibly marketed and sold their guns — in this case, in a way that supplied a criminal gun market and fueled soaring rates of gun crime in the city.

[snip][end]

The Sandy Hook families reached a $73 million settlement in their suit with Remington Arms.

Comment: Good.

No industry should have blanket immunity.

No, Gov. Newsom is not setting up anything to go to any higher courts. Yes, he signed a bill that utilizes an exemption already in the law. Good it's there. Time for more states to use it.

Please note, the key difference between the abortion laws of those 3 states and AB 1594 is it allows people to sue a manufacturer - nothing unusual and pretty much something you could always do before 2005 put some weird questions marks up for one peculiar industry - those abortion laws on the other hand allow people to sue not only anybody who has an abortion, but facilitates it (i.e. by driving the woman to the clinic, or showing her an ad for RU-486, or whatever) - it enables citizens to sue other citizens. Now: yes, of course, people can sue other people, but usually for things that harm them or their reputation or their lives. These laws enable people to sue people for something that caused zero impact to their own lives.

I think it's idiotic as fuck that I can sue you for $10K in TX because you gave some info to a person that abortion clinics exist in other states or mapped out the route for them to go there. If you're asking.

On the other hand, AB 1594 builds on the precedent of Sandy Hook vs. Remington Arms.

[Ted]

Here's the key.

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/07/12/new-c ... nger-hide/

AB 1594 utilizes an exemption to the federal statute that allows gun makers or sellers to be sued for violations of state laws concerning the sale or marketing of firearms.

[snip][end]

Forsooth! Of what doth the fair Guv of CA speak?

https://www.thetrace.org/2020/01/gun-in ... ity-plcaa/

Last November, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a lawsuit brought by the families of Sandy Hook victims against Remington Arms, the manufacturer of the rifle used in the school shooting. The move allows the case to proceed to trial. A week later, the Indiana Supreme Court followed the high court’s cue, permitting a suit filed by the city of Gary against the 10 largest handgun manufacturers in America to move forward.

[snip]

The Sandy Hook and Gary decisions, however, suggest there is a crack in PLCAA’s seemingly solid veneer. What’s different about these cases? And what might they mean for the industry’s legal immunity?

[snip]

What is uncommon about PLCAA, however, is that it provides blanket immunity to an industry, as opposed to some specific industry conduct. Never before had Congress granted a single industry such extensive legal protection — nor has it done so since. The tobacco, automotive, and pharmaceutical industries, for example, have all faced lawsuits alleging that their products caused irreparable harm to the general public. In each instance, legal battles have triggered significant industry-wide changes.

[snip]

PLCAA has a specific, if narrow, exception. Unlawful conduct by the industry itself is not protected, meaning if a gun manufacturer, distributor, or dealer breaks the law, it can be sued.

The text of the law says that legal immunity will not apply to any action in which a manufacturer or seller knowingly break laws that regulate the marketing or sale of their products.

[snip]

Yes. In the Sandy Hook case, the plaintiffs allege that Remington violated Connecticut’s unfair trade practices law — that it “knowingly marketed and promoted the Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle for use in assaults against human beings,” and thus encouraged the boy who would eventually open fire at the elementary school, per court documents in the case.

In Indiana, the plaintiffs allege that the gun manufacturers violated the state’s public nuisance law. This means that the city of Gary is alleging that the handgun manufacturers named as defendants irresponsibly marketed and sold their guns — in this case, in a way that supplied a criminal gun market and fueled soaring rates of gun crime in the city.

[snip][end]

The Sandy Hook families reached a $73 million settlement in their suit with Remington Arms.

Comment: Good.

No industry should have blanket immunity.

I think you and I are on the same page.

Manufacturers and sellers should be held responsible when they break the law.

Manufacturers and sellers should not be sued when their legally produced and sold products are used to commit crimes.

[ProfX]

But they should be sued when they manufacture products that help them be used criminally, market their products in ways that seem to encourage criminal usage, or do things that don't prevent their products from winding up in criminal hands. (That is more a dealer than manufacturer problem.)

Then there's this question mark of marketing a product for which there don't seem to be any real consumer need, except hunting humans, which is, of course, illegal. Yeah, Bernie & I agree on this too.

AB 1594 is helping make sure that can happen.

[Glennfs]

But they should be sued when they manufacture products that help them be used criminally, market their products in ways that seem to encourage criminal usage, or do things that don't prevent their products from winding up in criminal hands. (That is more a dealer than manufacturer problem.)

Then there's this question mark of marketing a product for which there don't seem to be any real consumer need, except hunting humans, which is, of course, illegal. Yeah, Bernie & I agree on this too.

AB 1594 is helping make sure that can happen.

With few exceptions the maximum speed limit in most states is 70mph.
Yet car manufacturers produce cars which do over 100mph.
So shouldn't they be civilly maybe criminally liable fo rd accidents when the car is traveling over 70mph

[ProfX]

With few exceptions the maximum speed limit in most states is 70mph.
Yet car manufacturers produce cars which do over 100mph.
So shouldn't they be civilly maybe criminally liable fo rd accidents when the car is traveling over 70mph

No, because you can use their cars on roads like the Autobahn or in other countries. Where there are no speed limits.

OTOH, Honda, Toyota, etc. could get in trouble if they sold a car with a radar detector in it, or extreme window tinting, or a nitrous fuel system. Now, I recognize consumers can modify their vehicles in these ways - of varying legality and responsibility depending on the state they live in - I'm talking about the manufacturer.

[Libertas]

Cons love it when AK47's are used to kill dozens of children.

Obviously. Otherwise they would stop making childish arguments about why NOT to control guns.