I'm sure you already understand but anybody in this country can already sue anybody for any reason they can think of. You can sue you neighbor because his grass isn't as green as yours if you want to. A judge will make that determination. It happens all the time. If you don't like a movie, sue the theater for showing it. Odds are pretty damn good the judge will decide it's frivolous and throw it out of his court. If judges couldn't do that the courts would be overloaded with silly lawsuits. Nobody is getting special treatment. If you buy a Smith & Wesson and it blows up in your hand you have a perfect right to sue S&M and you would likely win. If you shoot a burglar with your Smith & Wesson the burglar, if he lives, may say, "Dat white mutha LaSalle ain't got no money. Smith an Wesson gots lots of money. I is gonna sue dose rat bastards fo sellin' dat fool a gun." As the law stands now the burglar would have no chance of getting a judgement against Smith & Wesson. If the gun grabbers get their way then S&W would be held legally responsible and made to pay. Everybody should be protected from frivolous lawsuits. But deep pocketed companies get sued all the time by idiots looking for an easy buck. If Walmart sells you a tire tool and you injure yourself while changing a tire because the tool breaks you have a good case against both Walmart and the manufacturer. If somebody else buys a tire tool at Walmart and hits you with it you can still sue Walmart but it's likely to get thrown out of court as frivolous. Coca Cola manufactures a soft drink full of sugar. Is it any surprise that out of the millions of Coke drinkers some of them gain weight and that a very few of them think they can get rich by blaming Coca Cola because they drank so much as to make themselves a bloated pig? If you burn your balls because you spill a hot cup of Starbucks coffee on yourself go ahead and sue. Some woman sued McDonalds for the same thing a few years ago. Not balls but her vaginal area. I think she won. I'm going to sue DeWalt. They sponsor Matt Kenseth's car in NASCAR. Matt Kenseth isn't one of my favorite drivers. I am offended.
That's my point though. What makes the gun companies more special than any other company? Why do we need laws to protect them and not others?
Because its wrong, and its a back handed way to try and put the gun manufacturers out of business. They can't get their gun grab through congress so they will try to bankrupt them with bullshit lawsuits. If you need an explanation as to why S&W should not be held liable if Joe shoots Bob then there just is no helping you. Note that that is entirely different than if Joe shoots his S&W and it blows up in his hand due to a poor build. Apples/Oranges
I never said they didn't need protection I'm just saying what makes them more special than DeWalt? Why isn't DeWalt or Louisville Slugger protected. This isn't about guns to me, however it is for everyone else. Personally they are no better than the companies I listed. So protect them too or protect no one.
What do you mean? If your Dewalt explodes in your face then you most certainly can sue them. If you are banging your neighbors bitch and he catches you and takes his Dewalt to your head then sorry, you don't have a case against them. See what I mean?
Yes, of course I do, so why does S&M need protection but DeWalt doesn't? Does this law protect all companies from frivolous lawsuits? If so the whole argument is moot.
No, you don't. If someone beats the hell out of you with a Dewalt tool you most certainly do NOT have a case against Dewalt. You can sue the individual in a civil case, and certainly a criminal case for battery but you have no grounds whatsoever to pursue litigation against the company that made the tool.
IMO they would be made liable for making guns do as they are designed. Historically the guns as designed are considered safe. There are multiple obstacles to missuse. They include safeties, separate ammunition and other features that prevent accidental use. Gun makers don't missuse the guns or sell the guns directly. Now if a law or regulation was put in place that mandated new guns must have additional safety means such as smart locks etc then gun maker could be held liable if they didn't follow the law/regulations. I don't see how they can be held liable for what stupid or bad people do.
Because gun makers are critical to the country's defense. Not for civilian weapons but for military. If gun makers were sued out of business where would the armed services get theirs? Also because gun makers are the objects of a political witch hunt.
