Skip to comments.
[California State] Senate OKs dropping product liability protections for guns
Associated Press ^
| 8-14-02
| STEVE LAWRENCE
Posted on 08/14/2002 1:28:13 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:40:45 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
SACRAMENTO (AP) --
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: banglist; guns; productliability
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
To: Oldeconomybuyer
"The plaintiffs claimed the manufacturer of two assault weapons used in those killings, Navegar Inc., was liable for damages because it marketed the guns to appeal to criminals and should have known they would be used in a massacre."
I'm going to be waiting to see how these two points are proved. What kind of marketing presentation has Navegar been using that would indicate that they were appealing to criminals, and how can anyone know that their product can be used in a massacre?
2
posted on
08/14/2002 1:35:47 PM PDT
by
RonF
To: Oldeconomybuyer
'Scusa: "could be" in the last post should have been "would be".
3
posted on
08/14/2002 1:36:21 PM PDT
by
RonF
To: RonF
What kind of marketing presentation has Navegar been using that would indicate that they were appealing to criminalsAuto makers also run ads which apparently appeal to criminals since just about every crook has one. I think that California should step forward and outlaw the internal combustion engine as punishment.
What, they passed that law earlier this summer??
4
posted on
08/14/2002 1:40:02 PM PDT
by
Dog Gone
To: Oldeconomybuyer
The entire idea of this latest push by Kalifornistan's gunbanners is two fold: 1) make it prohibitively expensive to market and sell guns here and 2) to line the pockets of their trial lawyer friends. Basically, the achieve gun prohibition through the back door. Ergo, this state's gun-free utopia is about to arrive!!!
To: RonF
"..the manufacturer of two assault weapons ... should have known they would be used in a massacre."The gun manufacturers should let it be known that any lawsuit like the above will be considered frivolous, and that a countersuit will immediately be filed asking for damages.
I'm really getting tired of these companies being so worried about their image that they settle out of court to avoid the negative publicity. The countersuit should not only be directed against the scum-sucking lawyers who bring the suit, but also those they represent. And I hope the judge awards the manufacturers millions.
To: *bang_list
To: RonF
But Sen. Don Perata, D-Oakland, said the bill was "not a gun (control) bill. It's a bill that deals with consumers and their right to go to court and have their day." In other words, this bill is chiefly about enriching trial lawyers. Putting the screws to gun manufacturers and gun owners is simply a desirable by-product.
8
posted on
08/14/2002 1:48:57 PM PDT
by
okie01
To: okie01
Its a gun control bill. As I said it achieves the gunbanners objective of banning private ownership of guns through the back door by making guns more expensive to buy and acquire. If you can't buy a gun at any price, you might as well not be able to get one outright. Plus the Rats line the pockets of their trial lawyer friends who in turn give them a share of the proceeds through campaign donations. Its a beautiful sweetheart deal all around except for gun manufacturers and gun owners.
To: Oldeconomybuyer
"There ought to be product liability when something is responsible for 30,000 deaths in America every year and for countless injuries," said Sen. Jack Scott, D-Altadena.
The liable product here is liberalism, which has pushed for rehabilitation over punishment, and generally fought for "criminal's rights."
10
posted on
08/14/2002 2:07:36 PM PDT
by
itzmygun
To: Dog Gone
I was thinking of car buyers as well when I read this part:
There ought to be product liability when something is responsible for 30,000 deaths in America every year and for countless injuries," said Sen. Jack Scott, D-Altadena
Personally, I believe the auto industry is incredibly negligible when I see race car drivers walk away from crashes that would leave your or I an unrecongnizable pulp. They could make all of our cars that safe if they really wanted to (or if we were willing to spend that much money for a car).
11
posted on
08/14/2002 2:10:06 PM PDT
by
jdub
To: Oldeconomybuyer
THE SENATE SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE!
To: jdub
They could make all of our cars that safe if they really wanted to (or if we were willing to spend that much money for a car). Do you wear a 5-point seatbelt and a helmet when you drive? That has a lot to do with it.
13
posted on
08/14/2002 2:14:06 PM PDT
by
Dog Gone
To: robertpaulsen
The gun manufacturers and ammunition manufacturers should also refuse to sell to the California government or any agency within California, and terminate all warranty support.
14
posted on
08/14/2002 2:14:07 PM PDT
by
Poohbah
To: Oldeconomybuyer
Other products are "subject to normal tort standards for liability," he said. "We're not asking for anything more or anything less, just the same thing" for guns. What a bald-faced lie!
15
posted on
08/14/2002 2:16:05 PM PDT
by
Sloth
To: Oldeconomybuyer
What are the product liability standards for, knives, razor blades, hot coffee and, for that matter, assinine chicken-$hit state lagislators.
Gun-owners in CA should simply leave. Leave the state with an unarmed law-abiding population so the criminally armed thugs can teach the world an object lesson.
It's a beautiful state but I could never live there until the national socialists are ousted
To: Poohbah
>>The gun manufacturers and ammunition manufacturers should also refuse to sell to the California government or any agency within California, and terminate all warranty support.
Brilliant! These politicians have CHiPs protecting them - at taxpayer expensive. Let them live under same laws they make for the rest of us.
17
posted on
08/14/2002 2:28:20 PM PDT
by
NEWwoman
To: Oldeconomybuyer
But Sen. Don Perata, D-Oakland, said the bill was "not a gun (control) bill. It's a bill that deals with consumers and their right to go to court and have their day."Isn't this the same turkey that sponsored a bill that would put a tax on bullets? Sounds like he's unencumbered with the thought process!
To: Oldeconomybuyer
The people that voted for this bill ought to be removed from the gene pool for sheer stupidity. If Grayvis signs this one you can bet the trial lieres will dump tons of $ his direction.
To: RonF
What kind of marketing presentation has Navegar been using that would indicate that they were appealing to criminals? In their ads, they touted a durable matte finish that resists corrosion from fingerprints, and the idiots spun that into thinking the ads appealed to people who would not want their fingerprints left on a weapon. It's just spin from complete morons. They also claimed hi-cap mags appeal only to criminals. Dang, I guess since I hate corrosion and like hi-caps, I must be a criminal. Arrest me, ossifer.
20
posted on
08/14/2002 2:48:52 PM PDT
by
Sender
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson