Court rules gun maker can be sued over Newtown shooting

Dec 2018
4,908
1,868
Florida
I remember buying a used Cadillac that had an NRA sticker on it from a car dealer. I never removed the sticker from the window and later, I had about 100 or so dinners at a restaurant bar with someone who was a "high up" in the NRA, over a course of a couple of years, about 3 times a week. During that time, we knew we didn't see eye to eye on gun control, but didn't annoy each other.

What happened to the days when people could think? So what if you believe whatever you believe about gun control, this court decision has no bearing to change anything. Can't you see this Connecticut Supreme Court decision changes nothing? Since when has going on the internet and being ridiculous, worked to help the cause, you think you are fighting for?

If you ever start believing like I do on anything, please do me a favor and change your mind.
It does change something. You have set yourself a concrete position and you were not willing to listen to the other side.

Can you tell me why a Company should be sued because of criminal use of their product?
 
Mar 2019
1,870
623
DE, US
It does change something. You have set yourself a concrete position and you were not willing to listen to the other side.

Can you tell me why a Company should be sued because of criminal use of their product?
I have posted the exceptions, but you can't accept it and keep framing this issue broadly. If a company willfully sends it's products to the wrong places, it can be sued for negligence. I've been in a gun shop where you can get accessories to convert semi-auto to full auto. I imagine there are gun shows that have dealers doing the same. There are local restrictions on magazine sizes, too. Gun dealers know what the local laws are and so do the gun manufacturers.

You're a gun nut who thinks US citizens should have unlimited access to arms and that can't be done legally. If a jury in some state believes a gun manufacturer is negligent in providing a product used in a crime, why shouldn't they suffer the consequences for their behavior? They don't have full immunity from suits and you should know it.

How many gun nuts have posted claims that defective products are the only exceptions and they know that isn't true? How hard is it to read what a law says?
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
76,684
45,929
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
If a company willfully sends it's products to the wrong places, it can be sued for negligence.

...

If a jury in some state believes a gun manufacturer is negligent in providing a product used in a crime, why shouldn't they suffer the consequences for their behavior?
You would need to show proximate causation, and it simply does not exist. The manufacturer sells to retail outlets and has little (if any) direct knowledge of the end buyer, nor access to it, since they are typically not (if at all) making direct sales to retail customers.
 
Dec 2018
4,908
1,868
Florida
I have posted the exceptions, but you can't accept it and keep framing this issue broadly. If a company willfully sends it's products to the wrong places, it can be sued for negligence.
Yes. And under the law that is being struck down in the OP, it STILL could be sued if it broke the law and sold to a prohibited party. And dealers HAD been.

I've been in a gun shop where you can get accessories to convert semi-auto to full auto.
Which makes a rifle a class 3 firearm and a felony to own without paperwork. Further. Can you name the accessory?

I imagine there are gun shows that have dealers doing the same. There are local restrictions on magazine sizes, too. Gun dealers know what the local laws are and so do the gun manufacturers.
Yes. And selling a prohibited product is illegal. And would be punishable under the law above.

You're a gun nut who thinks US citizens should have unlimited access to arms and that can't be done legally.
Straw man. You have no idea what my position is.

If a jury in some state believes a gun manufacturer is negligent in providing a product used in a crime, why shouldn't they suffer the consequences for their behavior? They don't have full immunity from suits and you should know it.
Again. We go back to my question that you cannot answer.

Why should a company be punishable for a criminal use of its product?

How many gun nuts have posted claims that defective products are the only exceptions and they know that isn't true? How hard is it to read what a law says?
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - Wikipedia

The law specifically protects them from lawsuits that involve criminal action with their products.

If they sell a product to a prohibited person they can be held liable. 2 suits were successfully brought against 2 dealers per the link I provided.

Which brings me back to my question:

Why should a manufacturer of a product be held liable for criminal use of its product? This is a broad brush because holding bushmaster responsible for someone using their rifle to kill people is no different than holding a knife or car or alcohol company responsible for someone criminally misusing their product.
 
Mar 2019
1,870
623
DE, US
You would need to show proximate causation, and it simply does not exist. The manufacturer sells to retail outlets and has little (if any) direct knowledge of the end buyer, nor access to it, since they are typically not (if at all) making direct sales to retail customers.
The issue is actually, is it possible for a gun manufacturer to be negligent? If it isn't possible for a gun manufacturer to ever be negligent, then the law would have been written differently than it is. What does the law say?
 
Mar 2019
1,870
623
DE, US

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
76,684
45,929
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
The issue is actually, is it possible for a gun manufacturer to be negligent?
Of course. Negligence is merely a breach of duty. But the manufacturer, selling to a retailer, does not have a duty to avoid selling to someone not permitted to own the weapon. If the manufacturer does sell to retail customers, then negligence is possible if it does not do the requisite background check on the prospective customer.

And again, where the manufacturer sells to a retailer, you could not show any negligence; much less could you show proximate causation. Merely creating the weapon is per se not negligence.