The thug is able to sue Mossberg. Under present law he will always lose. Sue and Randy can sue but they will lose too. You are confusing the act of filing a lawsuit with actually having a legitimate and winnable case. I have tried to explain this but I'm not a lawyer ands I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express. If you are still unsure about the difference next time you see an ambulance stop ones of the attorneys chasing it and ask him
No it's not confusing I think we all agree I just think this protection should be made available for all instead of just gun companies.
!. It is not a specific protection that gun manufacturers currently have. No laws exist holding gun manufacturers responsible for the misuse of their products. 2. All companies presently enjoy the same protection/non protection/ because it hasn't been considered likely that some bogus lawsuit would have a Chinaman's chance of actually winning a judgement. Glock, S&W, Walmart, Starbucks, DeWalt, McDonalds, and everybody else is presently equal under the law as regards to their implied liability for the intentional or unintentional use of their products by third parties. 3. Anybody has the right to sue anybody or any company for any reason. This would not change even if Bernie and his ilk get their way. Since everybody, including the manufacturers of firearms currently enjoy the protection by defacto of not needing specific protection the proposed laws would strip that protection for the gun manufacturers and make them legally liable for idiots and criminals using their products. This would not affect Coca Cola, Burger King, Sears, General Motors or any other company not engaged in the manufacturer of firearms. The exceptions might be to assign the same blame and liability to companies who don''t manufacturer guns but who sell them, ie, Walmart, The Academy, Spillway Sportman, Dick's Sporting Goods, Jim's Firearms, ect. New laws would by nature assign blame to the gun makers and sellers and strip away the protection that they and all companies currently have. 4. All kinds of companies are protected by the weight of the current laws and legal precedents governing lawsuits without foundation concerning the use of their products. This is exactly what you have been saying the standard should be. That standard you want already exists. B-B-B-Bernie and the Grabbers would change that to make gun manufacturers legally responsible for anybody using one or more of their products to cause death, injury or loss of property to another person or persons or to himself, as in the case of someone committing suicide with a gun. That is analogous to holding a rope manufacturer responsible if somebody hangs himself or Gillette responsible for somebody slashing their wrists. 5. The right to file silly lawsuits will not change no matter if the liberals get their way or not. You can still sue McDonalds and Budweiser because their products made you fat.
Ok, so again, we all agree. It shouldn't be that way. Basically you are saying Bernie wants to make it to where a frivolous lawsuit against gun makers would stand up in court, I don't think a frivolous lawsuit against anyone should be allowed to hold up in court. End of story.
