The gun industry has special protections and cannot be sued or held liable for the injury its products cause. This is due to previous legislation passed to protect gun dealers known as PLCAA (The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act).
The Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act (H.R. 4399/S. 2469), introduced earlier this year, would overturn PLCAA and repeal this immunity. These bills in the House and the Senate would allow Americans to hold firearm manufacturers and dealers liable for harm caused by the weapons they sell.
This legislation would make the gun industry accountable to their products in the same way industries like the car and toy industries already are. Right now, you can sue for damage done by a toy water gun, but not for damage done by a real gun. This legislation would fix that.
Let Congress know you support this legislation. It’s time to hold the gun industry accountable for knowingly selling firearms to criminals for the sake of profit.
>>70343859
Can we also have a bill to make the hammer industry accountable for when I bash a person's skull in with a hammer?
>overturn PLCAA
how about just hold the person behind the trigger accountable anon ?
>>70343859
Cocked like noobs..
>>70343995
Knowing your justice system that is probably already possible.
>>70343859
You stupid fuck.
>do you sue Toyota if someone grabs his car and runs over people?
>do you sue hammer makers because someone used a hammer to kill someone?
>do you sue Benchmade because someone used one of their knives to stab someone?
>do you sue McDonald's because someone used a cup of their coffee to burn you?
>do you sue Boeing because some terrorist used their planes to fly into a building?
>do you sue a pool maker because someone used a pool to murder someone else?
>do you sue a dildo maker because someone used it to shove it up your ass without lube?
Tell me.
>>70344192
That doesn't make it OK
Anything that makes guns more expensive or creates obstructions to purchase is to be considered treasonous at this point
>>70344262
He's American, so probably.
For everyone who posts in this thread after me I will donate $25 to the NRA.
>>70344262
>someone used a pool to murder someone else?
I like your style, you madman
>>70343859
>The gun industry has special protections
stopped reading right there
It is not special protection to be protected from lawsuit if your product is used improperly. Everyone gets that protection.
If I strangle my neighbor to death with a phone cord, his next of kin cannot sue AT&T.
>>70344602
I've done it tons of times.
>have victim climb into pool
>remove ladder
>wait for them to drown
>put their tombstone in their grieving widow's bedroom
>>70344729
also this
>Right now, you can sue for damage done by a toy water gun, but not for damage done by a real gun
[CITATION NEEDED]
>>70343859
So does the vaccines industry what's your point?
>>70343859
Liberalism is a mental illness.
>>70343859
>This legislation would make the gun industry accountable to their products in the same way industries like the car and toy industries already are.
So only in cases of gross negligence resulting in accidental injury due to a malfunction?
>>70343859
It blows my mind that there are people who believe in stuff as obviously stupid at this.
>>70343859
>The gun industry has special protections and cannot be sued or held liable for the injury its products cause.
Gun manufacturers are not liable for faulty products?
>>70344262
>do you sue McDonald's because someone used a cup of their coffee to burn you?
>>70343859
So in Freedom land you can't sue a gun manufacturer if your gun explodes in your hand through no fault of your own?
>>70343859
Die in a grease fire.
>>70346317
> However, both 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 in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act
>>70346496
So... gun manufacturers are held liable in exactly the same way as everyone else, in that if someone uses their shit for illegal actions, these people are held responsible themselves?
If anything, they're off the hook for creating "safe" products, i.e. products safe from abuse. But so are breweries and tobacco companies, so I don't see the issue.
>>70346317
no you can sue them, the PLCAA, is only valid that you can sue the gun maker when someone does a crime with the gun. (exception, when the dealer knows the suspect is going to commit a crime with it)
Its really laughable you need such a law in the first place.
Then again, its murica where you can sue anyone for everything
thread theme:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeXQBHLIPcw
>>70346708
Liberals are braindead and motivated purely by feelings. There's no other explanation.
>>70346708
Liberals just want to sue the gun manufactuer if some idiot goes on a shooting spree. Its like suing ford because an idiot in an F150 decided that running over people was fun.
>>70343859
Someone check me on this but isn't there a slew of court cases that firmly sets precedent in regards to inherently dangerous products are not held liable when used for the purpose they are created for? For example, Colt isn't responsible for a person being shot through accident or intent as the handgun is functioning exactly as it was create for?
>>70346081
>>70346317
you can certainly sue for defects causing personal injury or property damage
this has nothing to do with that
this has everything to do with taking guns out of the hands of citizens
the new angle of attack by the noguns presumes that guns will become too expensive for consumers and too much risk of liability to manufacturers
>>70346804
Yep, all feels no logic or reason.
I agree.
>>70345757
This does happen though. When I was a kid, my friend's dad had a gun that went off in the desk and killed my friend in the other room.
>>70346955
>Its like suing ford because an idiot in an F150 decided that running over people was fun.
It's more like suing Jack Daniels because your dad is a failure and beats your mom while drunk every day, loses his job and dies in his 40s from liver failure. As in, the product used as intended (for drinking) causes damage.
Still doesn't make sense. Most companies aren't held resposible for abuse of their product, not even if correct usage of their product includes abuse. Those with such products instead get limitations regarding their sales.
That's actually retarded. Toy and Car companies can be sued if a DEFECT in the product harms someone. By allowing people to sue gun manufactures you will destroy the gun market in america. A gun is only a tool the people who use the tool are what can cause good or harm.
>>70347039
Repealing PLCCA would be pretty much impossible though. Not even Obama and his democratic supermajority did it.
>>70346974
Yes exactly. Liberals want to create a de facto gun ban by allowing people to sue gun manufacturers when somebody decides to shoot somebody else up. Nobody would want to sell guns in the US anymore if that was allowed.
>>70343859
Even Benis Handers thinks this is retarded, fuck off.
>>70347307
agree
it will not be a mighty slash with a sword
it will be 9000 cuts with a pocketknife
scary because it seems to me the 2nd amendment protects all the rest
>>70346122
yea that was some bullshit
true story though
iamdisapointson.png
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
>>70347341
Then there is no point to this legislation but feel-good nonsense that will fill and already overloaded court docket with born to lose suits?
>>70347516
No it will allow people to take money from gun manufactuers because their product was misused. They will be able to win their cases.
>a company should be punished when its product functions as intended.
Thanks OP, I was beginning to wonder if not all OPs are faggots. Thanks for preserving my faith.
>>70343859
I don't have a congressman, despite being American. Why don't they fix that too?
t. washingtonian
>>70347483
>scary because it seems to me the 2nd amendment protects all the rest
It doesn't, and it can't. Only a vigilant population can do that.
Dictatorships don't happen because Obama suddenly crowns himself god-emperor of the USA. They happen far more subtle, and the population nods off every step along the way, or just agrees in the first place. Ask the french after their revolution, would more guns in the peoples hand have helped preventing Napoleon? When Hitler took power, would more guns in the peoples hands have prevented it?
You need people willing to stand up for freedom. Everything else falls in line by itself. No government can stand up to its united people, armed or not.
>>70347606
>They will be able to win their cases.
How will they be able to win their cases when precedent indicates that they will lose every time?
>>70343859
>The gun industry has special protections and cannot be sued or held liable for the injury its products cause
That's not special protection. It's common knowledge that guns are inherently dangerous, therefore they carry no duty of care the owners.
It's the same "special protection" given to people who manufacture kitchen knives.
>>70347799
Because they defendents won't have protection by law anymore. Precedent is only relevant if no laws have been changed.
>>70347744
>Only a vigilant population can do that.
great insight out of nowhere is much appreciated
i disagree with this though:
>No government can stand up to its united people, armed or not.
>>70343859
That is the most retarded thing I have ever heard. A gun is a weapon and is designed to kill and injure. So I dont see how you can sue a company for selling something that fulfills its intended purpose.
>>70348065
>Because they defendents won't have protection by law anymore
These cases have been tried on their merits before. If I understand the law correctly it brought an end to these silly cases having to be considered by the clerk.
>Precedent is only relevant if no laws have been changed.
That's not how precedent works in a common law judiciary. If there is an independent ground for a decision a change in laws is not going to affect the precedent. Thus why I asked about the precedent involved with "inherently dangerous products."
>>70348104
>i disagree with this though:
>>No government can stand up to its united people, armed or not.
The (compliant) people are the source of any governments power. Their army doesn't run on orders, it runs on fuel and supplies. Their police doesn't eat the tears of arrested people, they eat food, farmed by others. For the governments tools of power execution to continue function, they need a huge share of the population being willing to continue working for them. If they stop, the government can't do shit. No supplies, no power.
Which is why any regime basing its rule on guns is so keep on keeping its population scared, divided, intimidated by outside factors, and hence unlikely to actually unite against the top.
>>70343859
Ok. let me jump in my car..
>>70348431
what you say is very true, just not practical, this is why i disagree
it is not likely that the population as a whole will just wise up and 'go on strike'
there will always be some that 'stay on uncle sam's payroll'
that being said, if anything keeps an aggressor in check, it is the possibilty of armed resistance
thnx to reply, insight is my drug of choice anon
It's kind of tricky. Guns are made to hurt other people, so sueing will be off the charts. At the same time, injury caused by a faulty firearm deserves a lawsuit.
>>70344549
>For everyone who posts in this thread after me I will donate $25 to the NRA.
do it faggot!
Cars manufacturers should be responsible too of the deaths caused by their clients. WHY THE HECK NOT?
WORLD LIBERAL SENSE FUCKIN MAKES NO
>>70349069
It's happened here, that's why I keep it in mind. The GDR didn't fall because people started a civil war. A couple million went on the streets, regulary, and Russia decided not to intervene. The local government couldn't stand against its people.
Now, armed resistance may keep governments in check, or they may use it to threaten another part of the country, so they keep at least some of their people in support, and hence as their power base. Your armed resistance drives libshits into support of the government, is what I'm saying. Divide and conquer.
The difference is that damage done by a firearm usually means that it was operating correctly, damage done by a water gun means it was a faulty design. This is a transparent attempt to make the manufacturer of firearms too cost prohibitive and by proxy cause a form of gun control.
>>70344549
Here you go.
>>70350267
oh and the end result will be more good paying jobs lost to liberal feelings, and this does nothing to address the real problem which is liberal policies that enable violent minorities to justify their actions.
>>70349793
>The GDR didn't fall because people started a civil war. A couple million went on the streets, regulary, and Russia decided not to intervene. The local government couldn't stand against its people
ah-ha
>Your armed resistance drives libshits into support of the government, is what I'm saying. Divide and conquer.
this is going on as we speak, formulated narrative to divide the people
and the 'useful idiots' on the left don't even realize they are being used as a tool
>mfw 'useful idiots' on the right like myself are also being used as tools
>>70343859
You're retarded. Car companies cannot be sued for car crashed/accidents. They can't even be sued if someone uses a car as a weapon. However if your car explodes when you start the ignition due to manufacture default, you can sue them all you want
Gun manufactures are and should be held to that same standard. If you use a gun to murder someone in a drive-by (which goes against manufacture's purpose of that firearm), then there should be no grounds for a lawsuit. However if your cheap ass glawk explodes and shears off your face due solely to a manufactures defect (and not because you failed to care for your firearm properly), then you do have grounds for a lawsuit.
This law will never ever be applicable even if it passes though. It's not lawful to hold someone responsible for another person's actions.
