Contributors

  • Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« NLJ Announces Contest for D.C.-Area In-House Legal Departments | Main | Bradley Arant Bolsters Litigation Practice with Three Lateral Attorneys »

January 14, 2013

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d94869e2017c35c2f72f970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Congressman Hopes to Give Gun Violence Victims the Right to Sue:

Comments

Michael Caldwell

A silly law offered by a grandstanding but ineffectual pol who, like the political hacks who used children as props (a favorite of democrats)in their "gun control" executive orders, want to be seen as doing something even while they do nothing. Does not the intentional wrongdoing of the shooter serve as an intervening action disrupting the chain of causality? A gun is an instrument intended to cause harm --when the shooter finds this necessary. It should come as no surprise that, when used by the dangerous loons whom Jimmy Carter's efforts prevented us from institutionalizing, guns tend to inflict fatal havoc!

Doug

There is no justification whatsoever to hold a manufacturer liable for the misdeeds of the consumer who purchased the product. As the law stands now it is possible to sue a manufacturer for faulty products and misconduct in distribution of the product.

Schiff is aiming to bankrupt firearms companies with frivolous lawsuits, which is why PLCAA was passed in the first place.

Dissident

"Good gun companies don't need special protection from the law, and bad companies don’t deserve it."

Yet, all Congressman, judges and prosecutors, no matter how corrupt or culpable, have absolute immunuty from suit by their victims. See any hypocrisy here, Representative Schiff?

Ray

There should be an aggressive effort to educate and encourage surviving victims and family of non-surviving victims to seek plaintiff representation, and sue ALL negligent parties and/or their estates(i.e., anyone who is negligent in allowing a weapon they are responsible for to get in the hands of a shooter. Example: Newtown. Wow was that mother negligent...in mnay ways!) Start hitting the gun owners in the pocket book and we'll see more "locked up" guns. Nothing worse than hiting somone in the pocketbook. Impute negligence as far as possible...and be very public about it! Soon, the guns will be under "fortress protection"! Trust me!

Dissident

Even if the law was adopted, most cases would be thrown out for lack of Article III standing since the injury is caused by the gunman, not the manufacturer,distributor, or dealer.

Brooks White

The problem with liability of either manufacturers, distributors or owners of these weapons, is that it would be insured. An alternative may be to ban the possession or use of these semi-automatic assault rifles with 10 round or more clips, except at licensed gun ranges or at hunting clubs (or sponsored trips). These weapons would be held as bailee's at the range/club and they would have strict risk management requirements. There would naturally be limited exceptions (law enforcement; repair shops; gun shops; etc.). It would apply to all existing owners and new purchasers. On sale the weapon would be shipped directly to the licensed range/club. There would be both criminal and a very high civil penalty, which could not be excused in bankruptcy, or insured. This would be no more restrictive than restricting free speech where there could be a public safety issue and still preserves the right to bear arms. While hand guns present a greater problem in terms of suicides and murders, these weapons are little more than status symbols and sends the wrong message about how as a society we feel about our children. Putting more fire power in schools would only mean more cross-fire.

Wade Jackson

The only thing the 2005 law protects manufacturers and sellers from is negligent or harmful acts perpetrated by individuals or third parties.

You can't sue Ford if someone is negligent in their driving and injures you.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/q/qualified-civil-liability-action/

Lynn

I live in a town that borders Newtown, CT and have been an advocate of stronger gun control laws well before the Sandy Hook tradegy. I do not think there will ever be a law passed that allows victims families to sue gun manufacturers but I applaud the attempt. There has to be an end to senseless deaths and violence at the hands of gun owners who are criminals or mentally unstable.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

Advertisements