Uh oh...
- Thread starter watercam
- Start date
If in a case of self defense where the bullet/gun fails to kill the aggressor should you be able to sue the manufacturer of either or both too? Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
So I ask that you provide links to information to support your position, and you respond with personal insults.
That says alot about your character, and it ain't good!
If you took offense at what I said, you may be a bit thin skinned. Your assessment of my character is irrelevant to me as is your analysis of the Court's holding. I did point you to the information you requested (in case you don't read so well). All you need do is look. I see you are North of Austin, probably Round Rock, and you are retired from the aerospace industry. I also see you moved there a few years ago. I am making a leap here, but is California your prior residence? I only ask because it is so very liberal to cast insults ("deep state conspiracy"), then attempt to turn it around and claim that the insultor is the insultee. We have seen a lot of it since 2016, about the time you joined this forum. Speaking of joining the forum, Did I read correctly that you have had 1500+ posts on this forum since you joined in 2016? A man with a lot to say! I tend to favor Nick Caprinolo's opinion on the outcome of this case. It shows some legal insight. This is merely an interim legal maneuver to attempt to resolve the case with the least possible time and expense and it didn't work. It doesn't mean Remington won't prevail in the end.
Last edited:
jsn
Gold $$ Contributor
Anybody ever read about Adam Lanza'a therapist?
http://ablechild.org/2016/04/25/arr...-may-lead-to-answers-in-murder-investigation/
https://www.madinamerica.com/2016/0...-may-lead-to-answers-in-murder-investigation/
http://ablechild.org/2016/04/25/arr...-may-lead-to-answers-in-murder-investigation/
https://www.madinamerica.com/2016/0...-may-lead-to-answers-in-murder-investigation/
I'd like to believe Remington will prevail, however I've seen too many similar lawsuits where the facts are disregarded and a big payday is awarded to the plaintiffs. Appeals may reduce such an award, they frequently do, but likely it'll still be significant. Piper Aircraft Corp was sued out of existence by such a lawsuit. If you want to see how bad these kinds of lawsuits can go, read a summary of that debacle.
Please post a link to the Legislative Intent document you reference. Inquiring minds would like to know.
I actually gave up the practice of law five years ago when I retired after 30+ years, and prefer spending my remaining time on this earth thinking about important things such as ballistics, reloading the perfect match bullet and how to get tiny groups out of my rifle/bullet combination, rather than law and politics - which are inseparable.
However, since you asked, might I suggest you start your search for the truth in this matter with the following webpage (see below) which will cue you into the legislative machinations behind the effort to save the firearms industry from product liability lawsuits based upon nothing more than a claim that the criminal use of their product was foreseeable - which cuts against a long-standing principle that, absent a special relationship to the specific criminal actor, a person is entitled to assume the acts of any other person will be lawful. In simple terms, that means unless you know a specific person will commit a criminal act with the gun you sell him or her, you can presume he or she will act lawfully with it. Another exception to the act exists for negligent entrustment, such as might occur when you sell a firearm to someone who is a prohibited possessor and you knew or reasonably should have known he or she was. This is more applicable to a careless retailer than a manufacturer. (The point in this is 'product liability' lawsuits were being misused to try to drive the firearms industry out of business, not because the product was defective, as product liability lawsuits were created for, but because the plaintiffs wanted to punish the manufacturer of a product that was unlawfully misused, and they were financed in that effort by those who simply want guns gone. That is a motive that is a complete misuse of the judicial system and the body of law known as 'products liability.')
To really understand this legal struggle to stop the corruption of an otherwise legitimate body of law, i.e. 'product liability' law, you need to go back to the 1980s. I never quote the Washington Post but (grudgingly) I have to admit they summed it up nicely in an article on May 24, 2016:
Background from the 1980s: It is no secret that firearms prohibition organizations have been frustrated by their inability to convince most legislative bodies to enact their agenda. Thus, they have turned to the courts to attempt to create de facto prohibitions. The first round began in the 1980s, when lawsuits claimed that some properly functioning handguns were “defectively designed” within the meaning of product liability law. All of the suits involved pushing beyond the boundaries of product liability precedent. The product liability lawsuits spurred many states to enact statutes forbidding product liability suits against manufacturers and retailers of properly functioning firearms.
Anyway, You can begin to tune into the reasons behind the passage of the Act and read the official legislative intent by going to your local law library (UT Austin Law School has a great US Code section. I have been there several times). I will provide herein the citation to the legislation, the public law and the USC sections involved. If you google them, you will find much more discussion on the web but it is always best to go to the original documents and read the information regarding legislative intent there, then read the annotations that proceed from the original statutory provisions and you will find much discussion by courts following, modifying or rejecting the statute which will provide further information regarding the intent of the statute and why it was enacted.
The Statute is called "The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)." The PLCAA is codified at 15 U.S.C. 105 §§ 7901-7903. The Act is entitled "An Act to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others." The Act also resulted in amendments to the federal criminal code at 18 U.S.C. ch. 44 §§ 921, 922, 924. Note that nothing in these laws prevent the victims from maintaining an action against the manufacturer for the manufacturers defective product, or for the negligent, reckless or criminal acts of the manufacturer. It only prohibits a lawsuit against the manufacturer for someone elses' unlawful use of the product.
It was introduced in the Senate by my Senator (S. 397 by Larry Craig (R–ID) on February 16, 2005). The debate went on from there until it was finally signed into law by Bush two days after my birthday. It became Public Law #109-92.
Having said all that, you can read the online version of the Legislative Intent here:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/senate-bill/397/text
I apologize for the length of this post and the rambling nature. It is impossible to sum up 40 years of judicial and legislative history and political chess moves in a short post. It is easily the subject of an entire semester class in law school, and it will never end so long as we remain a free nation.
However, since you asked, might I suggest you start your search for the truth in this matter with the following webpage (see below) which will cue you into the legislative machinations behind the effort to save the firearms industry from product liability lawsuits based upon nothing more than a claim that the criminal use of their product was foreseeable - which cuts against a long-standing principle that, absent a special relationship to the specific criminal actor, a person is entitled to assume the acts of any other person will be lawful. In simple terms, that means unless you know a specific person will commit a criminal act with the gun you sell him or her, you can presume he or she will act lawfully with it. Another exception to the act exists for negligent entrustment, such as might occur when you sell a firearm to someone who is a prohibited possessor and you knew or reasonably should have known he or she was. This is more applicable to a careless retailer than a manufacturer. (The point in this is 'product liability' lawsuits were being misused to try to drive the firearms industry out of business, not because the product was defective, as product liability lawsuits were created for, but because the plaintiffs wanted to punish the manufacturer of a product that was unlawfully misused, and they were financed in that effort by those who simply want guns gone. That is a motive that is a complete misuse of the judicial system and the body of law known as 'products liability.')
To really understand this legal struggle to stop the corruption of an otherwise legitimate body of law, i.e. 'product liability' law, you need to go back to the 1980s. I never quote the Washington Post but (grudgingly) I have to admit they summed it up nicely in an article on May 24, 2016:
Background from the 1980s: It is no secret that firearms prohibition organizations have been frustrated by their inability to convince most legislative bodies to enact their agenda. Thus, they have turned to the courts to attempt to create de facto prohibitions. The first round began in the 1980s, when lawsuits claimed that some properly functioning handguns were “defectively designed” within the meaning of product liability law. All of the suits involved pushing beyond the boundaries of product liability precedent. The product liability lawsuits spurred many states to enact statutes forbidding product liability suits against manufacturers and retailers of properly functioning firearms.
Anyway, You can begin to tune into the reasons behind the passage of the Act and read the official legislative intent by going to your local law library (UT Austin Law School has a great US Code section. I have been there several times). I will provide herein the citation to the legislation, the public law and the USC sections involved. If you google them, you will find much more discussion on the web but it is always best to go to the original documents and read the information regarding legislative intent there, then read the annotations that proceed from the original statutory provisions and you will find much discussion by courts following, modifying or rejecting the statute which will provide further information regarding the intent of the statute and why it was enacted.
The Statute is called "The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)." The PLCAA is codified at 15 U.S.C. 105 §§ 7901-7903. The Act is entitled "An Act to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others." The Act also resulted in amendments to the federal criminal code at 18 U.S.C. ch. 44 §§ 921, 922, 924. Note that nothing in these laws prevent the victims from maintaining an action against the manufacturer for the manufacturers defective product, or for the negligent, reckless or criminal acts of the manufacturer. It only prohibits a lawsuit against the manufacturer for someone elses' unlawful use of the product.
It was introduced in the Senate by my Senator (S. 397 by Larry Craig (R–ID) on February 16, 2005). The debate went on from there until it was finally signed into law by Bush two days after my birthday. It became Public Law #109-92.
Having said all that, you can read the online version of the Legislative Intent here:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/senate-bill/397/text
I apologize for the length of this post and the rambling nature. It is impossible to sum up 40 years of judicial and legislative history and political chess moves in a short post. It is easily the subject of an entire semester class in law school, and it will never end so long as we remain a free nation.
Last edited:
Getting me started on this is similar to the story of "Pandora's Box!" I am going to go make some cartridges and clear my mind. If you are truly seeking to determine if my assertion that the constant whittling away at the Statute, attempting to carve an exception for criminal misuse when that was exactly what the Statute sought to stop, is nothing more than a concerted effort to whittle away at the Second Amendment's right of law abiding citizens to own arms, please feel free to follow the threads I have provided. There is simply endless support for the assertion in public records, published articles and records of debate. I would prefer to not spend further time on it as I lived through those years and followed closely then, much to my aching head and burning stomach. Here is an excerpt from the (Congressional Record) House debate during the passage of PLCAA, which resulted in a large, bipartisan vote in favor of it:
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2005/10/20/house-section/article/H8990-5
General Leave
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 397, the bill
currently under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 397, the Protection of Lawful
Commerce in Arms Act. This legislation passed the Senate by more than a
two-thirds vote this summer and contains the same legal reform
provisions of H.R. 800 sponsored by the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Stearns). The Committee on the Judiciary considered and favorably
reported H.R. 800 in May of this year.
Just like H.R. 800 and similar legislation that passed the House by
more than a two-thirds majority during the last Congress, S. 397 will
stop frivolous and abusive lawsuits against manufacturers and sellers
of firearms or ammunition by prohibiting lawsuits resulting from the
criminal and unlawful misuse of their products from being filed in
Federal and State courts.
It is important to stress at the outset what this legislation does
not do. First, the legislation does not preclude lawsuits against a
person who transfers a firearm or ammunition knowing it will be used to
commit a crime of violence or drug-trafficking crime.
Second, it does not prevent lawsuits against a seller for negligent
entrustment or negligence per se.
Third, the bill includes several additional exceptions, including an
exception for actions in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified
product knowingly violates any State or Federal statute applicable to
sales or marketing when such violation was the proximate cause of the
harm for which relief is sought.
Finally, the bill contains additional exceptions for breach of
contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of a firearm or
ammunition, and an exception for actions for damages resulting directly
from a defect in design or manufacture of a firearm or ammunition.
Recent trends in abusive litigation have inspired lawsuits against
the firearms industry on the theory of liability that would hold it
financially responsible for the actions of those who use their products
in a criminal or unlawful manner. Such lawsuits threaten to rip tort
law from its moorings in personal responsibility and may force firearms
manufacturers into bankruptcy.
{time} 1030
While some of these lawsuits have been dismissed and some States have
acted to address them, the fact remains that these lawsuits continue to
be aggressively pursued. The intended consequences of these frivolous
lawsuits could not be more clear: the financial ruin of the firearms
industry. As one of the personal injury lawyers suing American firearms
companies told the Washington Post, ``The legal fees alone are enough
to bankrupt the industry.''
Lawsuits seeking to hold the firearms industry responsible for the
criminal and unlawful use of its products are brazen attempts to
accomplish through litigation what has not been achieved by legislation
and the democratic process. Various courts have correctly described
such suits as ``improper attempts to have the court substitute its
judgment for that of the legislature.'' As explained by another Federal
judge, ``the plaintiff's attorneys simply want to eliminate handguns.''
Personal injury lawyers are seeking to obtain through the courts
stringent limits on the sale and distribution of firearms beyond the
court's jurisdictional boundaries. A New York appeals court stated
recently that ``courts are the least suited, least equipped, and thus
the least appropriate branch of government to regulate and micro-manage
the manufacturing, marketing, distribution, and sale of handguns.''
Law enforcement, military personnel rely on the domestic firearms
industry to supply them with reliable and accurate weapons that can
best protect them in the line of fire. The best and most reliable guns
will not be those designed under the requirements personal injury
attorneys seek to impose through firearms lawsuits. Rather, these
lawsuits threaten to injure the domestic firearms industry, endanger
the jobs of thousands of hard-working Americans, and provide to foreign
manufacturers an unfair advantage.
One abusive lawsuit filed in a single county could destroy a national
industry and deny citizens nationwide the right to keep and bear arms
guaranteed by the Constitution. Insofar as these lawsuits have the
practical effect of burdening interstate commerce in firearms, Congress
has the authority to act under the commerce clause of the Constitution.
The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, by prohibiting abusive lawsuits
against the firearms industry, supports core federalism principles
articulated by the United States Supreme Court, which has made it clear
that ``one State's power to impose burdens on the interstate market . .
. is not only subordinate to the Federal power over interstate commerce
but is also constrained by the need to respect the interests of other
States . . . ''
Before closing, I think it is important to set the record straight on
one item. Some news outlets have claimed that this legislation would
have barred a lawsuit involving the D.C. sniper and the gun the sniper
obtained after it was stolen from a Washington State gun shop that did
not keep track of its inventory and did not realize that the guns were
stolen.
Anyone who actually reads this bill will immediately realize that
that claim is patently false, and it is important to note that some of
the editorial pundits apparently do not believe in reading the bills
before they write and publish.
Alright, have I beat that poor dead horse enough?
See you at the range!
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2005/10/20/house-section/article/H8990-5
General Leave
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 397, the bill
currently under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 397, the Protection of Lawful
Commerce in Arms Act. This legislation passed the Senate by more than a
two-thirds vote this summer and contains the same legal reform
provisions of H.R. 800 sponsored by the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Stearns). The Committee on the Judiciary considered and favorably
reported H.R. 800 in May of this year.
Just like H.R. 800 and similar legislation that passed the House by
more than a two-thirds majority during the last Congress, S. 397 will
stop frivolous and abusive lawsuits against manufacturers and sellers
of firearms or ammunition by prohibiting lawsuits resulting from the
criminal and unlawful misuse of their products from being filed in
Federal and State courts.
It is important to stress at the outset what this legislation does
not do. First, the legislation does not preclude lawsuits against a
person who transfers a firearm or ammunition knowing it will be used to
commit a crime of violence or drug-trafficking crime.
Second, it does not prevent lawsuits against a seller for negligent
entrustment or negligence per se.
Third, the bill includes several additional exceptions, including an
exception for actions in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified
product knowingly violates any State or Federal statute applicable to
sales or marketing when such violation was the proximate cause of the
harm for which relief is sought.
Finally, the bill contains additional exceptions for breach of
contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of a firearm or
ammunition, and an exception for actions for damages resulting directly
from a defect in design or manufacture of a firearm or ammunition.
Recent trends in abusive litigation have inspired lawsuits against
the firearms industry on the theory of liability that would hold it
financially responsible for the actions of those who use their products
in a criminal or unlawful manner. Such lawsuits threaten to rip tort
law from its moorings in personal responsibility and may force firearms
manufacturers into bankruptcy.
{time} 1030
While some of these lawsuits have been dismissed and some States have
acted to address them, the fact remains that these lawsuits continue to
be aggressively pursued. The intended consequences of these frivolous
lawsuits could not be more clear: the financial ruin of the firearms
industry. As one of the personal injury lawyers suing American firearms
companies told the Washington Post, ``The legal fees alone are enough
to bankrupt the industry.''
Lawsuits seeking to hold the firearms industry responsible for the
criminal and unlawful use of its products are brazen attempts to
accomplish through litigation what has not been achieved by legislation
and the democratic process. Various courts have correctly described
such suits as ``improper attempts to have the court substitute its
judgment for that of the legislature.'' As explained by another Federal
judge, ``the plaintiff's attorneys simply want to eliminate handguns.''
Personal injury lawyers are seeking to obtain through the courts
stringent limits on the sale and distribution of firearms beyond the
court's jurisdictional boundaries. A New York appeals court stated
recently that ``courts are the least suited, least equipped, and thus
the least appropriate branch of government to regulate and micro-manage
the manufacturing, marketing, distribution, and sale of handguns.''
Law enforcement, military personnel rely on the domestic firearms
industry to supply them with reliable and accurate weapons that can
best protect them in the line of fire. The best and most reliable guns
will not be those designed under the requirements personal injury
attorneys seek to impose through firearms lawsuits. Rather, these
lawsuits threaten to injure the domestic firearms industry, endanger
the jobs of thousands of hard-working Americans, and provide to foreign
manufacturers an unfair advantage.
One abusive lawsuit filed in a single county could destroy a national
industry and deny citizens nationwide the right to keep and bear arms
guaranteed by the Constitution. Insofar as these lawsuits have the
practical effect of burdening interstate commerce in firearms, Congress
has the authority to act under the commerce clause of the Constitution.
The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, by prohibiting abusive lawsuits
against the firearms industry, supports core federalism principles
articulated by the United States Supreme Court, which has made it clear
that ``one State's power to impose burdens on the interstate market . .
. is not only subordinate to the Federal power over interstate commerce
but is also constrained by the need to respect the interests of other
States . . . ''
Before closing, I think it is important to set the record straight on
one item. Some news outlets have claimed that this legislation would
have barred a lawsuit involving the D.C. sniper and the gun the sniper
obtained after it was stolen from a Washington State gun shop that did
not keep track of its inventory and did not realize that the guns were
stolen.
Anyone who actually reads this bill will immediately realize that
that claim is patently false, and it is important to note that some of
the editorial pundits apparently do not believe in reading the bills
before they write and publish.
Alright, have I beat that poor dead horse enough?
See you at the range!
ckaberna
Gold $$ Contributor
http://forum.accurateshooter.com/members/highplainsdrifter
Even though I am 2300 miles away, I would like to retain you as a personal attorney!
Even though I am 2300 miles away, I would like to retain you as a personal attorney!
Thank you, but, now I just shoot...
jnyfeler
Gold $$ Contributor
jnyfeler
Gold $$ Contributor
Let me thank you on behalf of Texas10 for your excellent write up and analysis!!!
Jim:
You are most welcome, but it was an easy assignment. The information is available and abundant, one has only to fire up their laptop/I Pad/ I phone and ask. (Still, it is more reliable to seek out the original sources rather than rely on what someone else puts on the internet). It took me less time to find the material than it took to cut and paste it, and the abundance of supporting material would overload this forum (which I wanted to avoid), so I only took a small sampling.
I appreciate the signature line that you use, by the way. I love to hunt but prefer not to kill so hunting is my excuse to get out for some good, peaceful time in the woods. Most of the year, I spend one or two days a week at the range, where the shooting does take center stage and where I constantly challenge myself to do better. I think, if I had my way, I would shoot all day, everyday, but life has a way of getting in the way! Thank you again for the kind words.
You are most welcome, but it was an easy assignment. The information is available and abundant, one has only to fire up their laptop/I Pad/ I phone and ask. (Still, it is more reliable to seek out the original sources rather than rely on what someone else puts on the internet). It took me less time to find the material than it took to cut and paste it, and the abundance of supporting material would overload this forum (which I wanted to avoid), so I only took a small sampling.
I appreciate the signature line that you use, by the way. I love to hunt but prefer not to kill so hunting is my excuse to get out for some good, peaceful time in the woods. Most of the year, I spend one or two days a week at the range, where the shooting does take center stage and where I constantly challenge myself to do better. I think, if I had my way, I would shoot all day, everyday, but life has a way of getting in the way! Thank you again for the kind words.
Ain't that the truth....
Similar threads
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.