Suing Gun Manufacturers

[poseidon]

I can't find the story, although it is an AP story that appears in today's newspaper. I also tried looking on the Rocky Mountain News website. But, here's the gist of the article.

The California Supreme Court held that gun manufacturers can not be held liable when their products are used illegally. This was done in a 5-1 decision that overturned an appellate court decision stating the opposite. The case arose from the killing of eight people on July 1, 1993 in San Francisco.

The article continues that every other state and federal appellate court where similar lawsuits have come up have ruled that the makers of legal firearms cannot be sued for criminal misuse.

Based on this decision, and the track records of the decisions in the past, should cities that are proceeding with lawsuits against gun manufacturers continue their lawsuits, potentially wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on a fruitless cause?

[erik_kosberg]

The story from Reuters.

Dropping the suits might well be a good idea. The California court is probably one of the more liberal in the country, so if they’re ruling in favor of gun manufacturers, what chance would suits like this have if they ever got all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court? I think that there’s a big difference between the tobacco suits and the gun suits. It can be argued that he tobacco companies conspired to deny the health effects of tobacco, but how could anyone claim that gun manufacturers lied about the lethality of guns? Complaining about the marketing of the TEC-DC9 as “resistant to fingerprints” is a pretty flimsy challenge. Wearing a glove would have the same effect.

[frazzledspice]

Perhaps (I can dream, can't I?) someday gun-owners might sue good old Smith & Wesson if their guns get jammed when they're in a jam, or misfire in some way.

Then again, given their tendency to settle altercations outside the court, they might just jam one in each holster and teach Messrs. Smith and Wesson some second amendment justice.

[cristina1]

This topic takes me back to my Business Law class where I was always at odds with the professor about when a manufacturer should be sued. In any case where a product is used either illegally or ignorantly, the manufacturer should not be held responsible.

Everyone laughs at the idiot labels on products today. But, unfortunately, companies have to put them there to protect themselves. What's next? A label on a gun that reads: "Warning: Using this product in a crime is illegal and may result in time in prison or even the death penalty."

"WARNING: The Surgeon General has detemined that use of this product may be hazardous to someone else's health."

-ls/file13